Madam Speaker, to add my comments to the previous speaker's on setting aside 1995 as the year of the grandparent, it is a first class idea. I would have liked to have seen that followed through.
However, my few moments are to talk about a question I raised on April 5 regarding the funding of health care. It is fair to say that one of the major factors that distinguishes Canada from the United States is our support of medicare. It is an identifying feature of being a Canadian and sets us apart from the United States.
We see now the possibility of the health care system and medicare system being seriously eroded as a result of the last budget, but also the two budgets leading up to it. An integral part of medicare is the universality provision. Whether one is a baker or a banker one ought to have the same access to health care wherever one happens to live in Canada.
We have held up with pride the universality of medicare as something that distinguishes us from our neighbours to the south. I do not have to remind anyone of the serious differences in the two systems. In Canada we spend a little less than 10 per cent of GDP on health care. In United States, its citizens spend a little less than 14 per cent of their GDP on health care. While their health care system costs much more, the wealthiest of Americans are well served by the system.
The average income earner in the United States who has to pay somewhere between $5,000 and $7,000 a year for coverage that is actually less than that in Canada is adequately covered. Somewhere between 30 and 40 million Americans have little or no health coverage.
As a distinguishing factor, what I was pointing out in my question was in recognition of that old adage that "he who pays the piper calls the tune". When one sees the tremendous reductions in funding for social programs including health care it becomes quite alarming.
While there is no direct effect on this year's funding for health care, the province of British Columbia alone in its cash entitlement under the Canada social transfer will be $371 million less in 1996-97 and $684 million less in 1997-98 than it would have been provided under EPF and CAP funding. These amounts are in addition to the $180 million negative impact of 1994 federal budget on transfers. The net effect of this is that in 1997-98 the entitlement for British Columbia will be $801 million less than the province received in 1994-95.
In summary, because of these massive reductions in transfer funding for health care, we have the likelihood of the health care system evolving into a patchwork across the country. We will have 12 different health care systems. No doubt some of the provinces will be able to withstand the offloading more than others.
The premier of the province of Alberta has indicated an interest in extra billing and privatizing a whole number of services based on the American model. It is certainly a direction that Canadians will not want to take.