Debates of Nov. 19th, 1998

Supply

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for today's motion. We are all aware of how important this is.

Since I just have a few minutes, I can only skim the surface of this issue. In New Brunswick, there are certainly major problems in health care, particularly affecting seniors. The elderly often have limited access to and pay more for health services. Since in-hospital services are being cut, they are often sent home with insufficient care.

I wish to thank the Bloc Quebecois for moving this motion in the House today so that we may discuss it.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian government returns the money it has cut over the past few years, whether in Quebec, in Acadia or in any Canadian province, this will give people some breathing room and they will have the money required for health services that really respond to the needs of the entire population.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, on the surface today the opposition motion calling for an immediate $2 billion boost in federal transfers to the provinces for health care is certainly both timely and constructive. It is timely and useful because the government is right now engaged in its annual pre-budget consultation, a process spearheaded by the finance committee.

It is clear that the issue of health care will be a top priority in the upcoming budget. We welcome advice on the design and amount that this support for health care should take. But what can seem like good intentions does not necessarily guarantee good policy.

Good intentions when they ignore the basic realities and constraints can often lead somewhere very unpleasant, and that is the problem with today's motion. To justify their call to add billions of dollars to federal transfers with an initial jump of $2 billion, the opposition cites a mid-year figure showing a federal fiscal surplus of $10.4 billion. The logic seems clear. The opposition would have Canadians believe that the government is awash in extra funds, so why not open the purse strings right now.

I think we need to be clear. Good policy demands looking beyond the narrow now to tomorrow and the day after. Good government cannot afford to ignore real economic risks in the pursuit of election style spending promises. That is the reason why our government cannot and will not support this motion. It would involve making dramatic spending commitments based on superficial numbers at a time when the global economy faces significant risks and uncertainty and Canada cannot break away from the global economy and ignore the impact it may have on governments and their fiscal outlook in the months ahead.

I welcome the opportunity to address the key issue of the supposed surplus this year. But before I do I want to make clear something about which there is no question and no debate. Health care is at the top of the list for Canadians in every region of the country. It is at the core of how we define ourselves as a national community and it is one of fairness and compassion.

That is clearly why, as the Prime Minister has said, the government will invest more of our resources in the years ahead to reinforce our public health care system. That is to my mind an absolute and unequivocal commitment.

But we also have an absolute and unequivocal commitment to good fiscal stewardship. We will not risk putting Canadians back into the cycle of deficits and debt that put our health care system and our entire social safety net into jeopardy in the first place. That is why in making decisions on further support for health care we will make sure that Canadian priorities are addressed with prudence, not just passion. In other words, we will take the sort of effective long term action that can be sustained year in and year out and not just based on a potential short term windfall.

This takes me right to the issue of the $10 billion mid-year surplus and to the criticism which is implicit in this motion today, that the federal government should not be so cautious about making spending commitments.

One of the reasons our government came to office and was returned last year was that Canadians had seen what happens when government relies on rosy forecasts and wishful thinking. The result was the $42 billion deficit that we inherited and the second largest debt burden in the G-7. We recognized that we had to apply caution to budget planning for a very good reason, so that we could restore confidence in the ability of the government to manage the country's books. That is why we set the two year rolling targets, so that the public could keep our feet to the fire.

As important, we used economic assumptions that were much more prudent than the average of private sector forecasts. This is reflected in a fundamental fact, that with Canada's high debt burden we could not simply rely on assumptions that had only a 50:50 chance of being right. If we were wrong it was the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian social safety net that would bear the burden and feel the pain.

Now after years of efforts and sacrifice by Canadians to clean up the mess, and despite the fact that our debt burden is still high, there are critics who want people to believe the government should be less careful with the nation's finances. They refer to recent numbers as evidence that the government is being overly cautious and potentially hiding large amounts of money.

Today's motion is a case in point. The hon. member is trumpeting the fact that the results for April through September of this year have been quite strong, with a cumulative surplus to date of $10.4 billion. His implication is clear. Whatever happens in the coming months, he wants us to believe there will obviously be a substantial pile of funds at year end that should have been drawn on now to boost health care. It is easy to jump to the conclusion if we are not responsible for the results. But for a government it is both dangerous and misleading to do so.

First, given the recent downward revisions to the Canadian economic outlook as a result of the global economic situation, there is a real risk of a significant deterioration in the fiscal situation. We have already seen the preliminary indications of the impact of slower economic growth on government revenues. Since June we have had only one month in which the surplus was larger than that recorded a year earlier. The weakness in the economy could easily reverse the gains that we have made to date.

Second, the hon. member does not seem to realize that the government receives between 25% and 40% of corporate income taxes in February and March. That is the settlement period for large corporations. There are some real implications for this year's ultimate fiscal situation. It means that the full impact of slower growth in corporate profits will not be evident until the end of the fiscal year.

Third, the income tax cuts announced in the 1998 budget just started to come into effect in July. This will reduce personal income taxes by $1 billion this year alone and by $2.3 billion next year. In other words, the first half's surplus involves a mixture of apples and oranges when it comes to the full year revenues.

Finally, spending measures announced in the 1998 budget for this fiscal year are still being put in place. That means they have not shown up yet.

All these considerations explain why, at the time of the finance minister's October economic and fiscal update, already showing a surplus of $8 billion for the period of April to August, that led to private sector forecasters such as the Royal Bank, CIBC and Nesbitt Burns to revise down their expectations for this year's surplus to about $5 billion.

There is even a more dangerous flaw in a motion that takes a six month surplus and extrapolates this into the longer term spending capability. Fiscal results are for a single month or a quarter or for a year. But spending like the CHST continues year after year. A $2 billion increase now means providing that additional $2 billion next year. In other words, whatever the final outcome for the current fiscal year, the 1999 budget must be based on the fiscal situation that will prevail in 1999-2000 and beyond. New spending programs and tax changes, both of which by their very nature are a permanent expense, can only financed if an ongoing fiscal dividend of sufficient size is available.

One of the vital skills of good government and effective leadership is to expect the unexpected. In today's volatile world economic environment, large differences between a government's original forecast and final outcome for a particular year are not unusual or unique. For example, the United States February 1996 budget originally projected a deficit of $196 billion U.S. for 1997-98. By last February the government was projecting a $10 billion deficit U.S. Both projections fell far short of the final result, a surplus of $70 billion U.S. by the close of the fiscal year.

At the time of our last budget many criticized our government for too being prudent. But the dramatic downward revision in the private sector forecasts since then clearly illustrates why we must stick to our plan.

We are not going to let Canadians return to the deficit house of horrors, not after having balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years. Fiscal prudence is not something we embrace when times are tough and throw out the window at the first sign that our income may being going up. It is a principle that has to be pursued all the time.

There is no doubt there is a need to further support health care in Canada. That need is real. We will make that support a priority. We have said that before. But we will do it in a way and in the amounts that the health care system in Canada can count on. That is why I urge the House to reject today's motion, not because it means rejecting new support for health care but because it means showing Canadians that the support for the health care system we all cherish must be real, reasonable and reliable in difficult times as well as in times of prosperity.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague's remarks, I thought of several questions I would like to raise officially in this House. Could we get confirmation that the cumulative surplus for the first six months of fiscal year 1998-99 is $10.4 billion, whereas a few weeks ago, as budget forecasts were being prepared, the Minister of Finance said “There will be no surplus of that amount”. But that is not the reality. Could he confirm that the figure is indeed $10.4 billion for the first six months?

Second, could he not act on the unanimous request of the provincial premiers, including the Liberal premiers?

Last week Brian Tobin and Russell MacLellan again asked the federal government to put money back into the transfer payments as soon as possible.

Today, the matter is clear for all Canadians: if the government simply pays back the debt and puts no money into health care transfer payments, the cost is once again passed on to those who fought the deficit, and the finances of those in the middle class and of the disadvantaged will not improve.

Are Canadians not entitled to quality health care through the injection of considerable funds, starting with the $2 billion requested in this area, to ensure that our health care system can have some breathing room?

With the $10 billion surplus in the first six months, which the Minister of Finance hid, could the government not be compassionate and ensure Canadians get proper health care by contributing fairly?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member did not have an opportunity to listen to what I said, even though he said he did.

What I said in my intervention was that the $10.4 billion is there. If he reads the Fiscal Monitor , which goes out to Canadians, he would see the figure.

The part he did not listen to, though, was that the government does receive between 25% and 40% of corporate returns the first half of the year and that private sector economists are saying that $10.4 billion surplus there today will not be there at the year end. They see a deterioration of that number because of the second half of the year. There are private sector economists like Robert Normand from Quebec who are pessimistic about 1999, indicating that the GDP is probably going to be on a bit of a downward track.

We are not going to hit a wall or anything. All we are saying is that the economy will experience a bit of a slowdown because of what is going on around the world. No one is denying it. I do not think the hon. member can say that I in any way indicated that health care was not a priority of all Canadians and that the government, through the prebudget consultation, is hearing from Canadians that health care is a priority. The government has not said that there would be no additional resources to health care. But I think it is responsible of a government to wait until there are the hard numbers on resources before making these types of decisions.

We spent the last 28 years and more in deficits. We were in a situation in 1993 of a $42 billion deficit. Canadians clearly do not want to enter that era again. The argument we are putting forward is that it is foolhardy to Canadians that we make an initial investment of $2 billion today, in fact immediately was the amendment, based on a mid-term number that may not hold up by the end of the year.

It is okay for opposition parties to make those statements, but government cannot be irresponsible, as I suggest the hon. member is being.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on the motion today.

I start by stating the motion so that Canadians clearly understand what we are debating, that this House support the unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed at Saskatoon August 7 to the effect that the federal government must reinstate, through the current mechanism of the Canada health and social transfer, at least $2 billion immediately in contributions to primary health services, considering that the federal government has already accumulated a budgetary surplus of $10.4 billion for the first six months of the 1998-99 fiscal year.

I refer to a press release by the premiers in Saskatoon on August 7. They reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining and enhancing a high quality universal health care system for all Canadians.

The premiers observed that every government in Canada but one, the federal government, has increased its funding to health care. The premiers are committed to directing additional federal funds to core health services.

The premiers also pointed out that since 1994-95, the Liberal federal government has introduced cuts that now represent $6 billion per year. These cuts to the Canada health and social transfer amount to 33%. The government cut 33% of the transfers of federal funds to the provinces but it only cut 6% in its own federal program spending. For every dollar the government cut out of federal program spending, it cut $5.50 out of money transferred to provinces for health care, education and social services.

The hon. member for Stoney Creek assured Canadians that health care is a top priority for his government. He said that it is irresponsible to make dramatic spending commitments in an economy subject to international changes. He also said that although health care is at the top of the list of priorities for Canadians, spending must be addressed with prudence and that it is foolhardy to make a commitment of $2 billion.

I want to share with Canadians some of the prudence with which this government is spending their money. The department of agriculture spent $200,000 on an information kit for members of parliament called “At Work in Rural Communities”. The Canadian Consul General in Shanghai felt that a 5,000 square foot house was no longer acceptable, so Canadians are paying $15,000 U.S. per month so he can rent a downtown apartment in Shanghai.

There is more foreign affairs spending. Canadians are spending $3,500 U.S.—and we all know how that translates in currency exchange—per month to store furniture at one location although that furniture is only valued at $1,000. Although one ambassador's residence is two times larger than the guidelines allow, the extra large house is costing Canadians $37,000 a year to maintain.

There are many golf courses included on this list but I want to point out some of the more outrageous support that this Canadian government feels is a priority. The Ontario Lawyers Association, $95,000; the Canadian Bar Association, $46,532; the Manitoba Trucking Association, $70,000; the British Columbia Trucking Association, $42,900; and Imperial Oil Limited, $120,601. Here are some more examples. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, $25,000; General Electric Canada, $1,239,268; Novem BV Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV, $125,368. We do not even believe in keeping the money in Canada. Nutek Sparbankernas Bank, I believe in the Netherlands, $10,810; Technical University of Denmark, $5,692.

These are only a few examples of the Liberal government spending priorities over spending on health care. We have to question the sincerity and honesty of the Liberal commitment to health care for Canadians.

All of this has a trickle down effect. When the federal government cuts transfers to provinces and the provinces have to make up those cuts to ensure Canadians receive a high quality health care system, they have to cut spending in other programs. One of the expenditures they cut is the transfers to municipalities. That is downloading expenses onto the local governments that normally would have had assistance from the provincial government. It is not just the provincial governments that are feeling the effects of these kinds of changes and the miscued priorities of this federal government.

I want to share with Canadians the accountability of this government. The government has tried to claim that it is not its fault that the health care system is suffering and that Canadians are having difficulty getting access to health care, hospitals and doctors. The government says that it is the provinces' fault.

The health minister has on more than one occasion blamed Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario, for the lack of health care services in the province. I would suggest to the health minister that he should look in the mirror if he is looking for a villain. Maybe with a bit of luck the finance minister will be standing behind him and his image will also be there and he can share the responsibility. The health minister cannot possibly blame the provinces for having to struggle to make up the difference. We are talking about a 33% cut under this Liberal government.

I know the health minister has made comments that it was the Liberal government that brought in the Canada Health Act and it was the Liberal government that brought in medicare. Yes, he is right that it was a Liberal government but at the time when it brought in health care there was a commitment to fund at 50%.

In Alberta there was great consternation that it had to go along with this program even though it was provided with a much more superior system to what was being offered because it was assured that it would be 50% funded. The Alberta health minister of the day knew that the time would come when the federal government would renege on that promise and would not support it at 50%. However, he had no choice but to bring Alberta into the program.

It is interesting to see this government has shown that the Alberta health minister was right that the federal government would renege on its responsibility and commitment. I know very well who that health minister was because he was my father. He resigned his post as the minister of health because he knew that the Canada Health Act would bankrupt the provinces. It is being shown today that is exactly what is happening.

I would ask this government where its commitment is to health care. Where is the government's commitment to Canadians that this is a priority when the commitment the government made when it was introduced of funding at 50% has been reduced to just over 11%? Where is the government's commitment to Canadians that health care is a priority and not spending on foreign affairs and public relations documents for members of parliament on agricultural issues in rural communities? Where is the government's commitment to Canadians that health care is its priority?

I would suggest to the House that there is no commitment and no sincerity in that commitment. This government has shown by its arrogant attitude that it is not going to support the demand and desire of Canadians for a secure health care system in the future.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear from the Reform Party. Depending on what day it is, some days it is tax cuts, EI and pay down debts and other days it is health care. It just depends I guess on which way the wind is blowing.

The first point I want to make concerns the reference to the 33% cut. The hon. member should come clean. If she is going to stick with a 33% cut, then in essence what she is saying is that the tax points that form part of the total entitlements to the provinces have no value.

Is the Reform Party now advocating that the provinces should in fact give back that tax room that was given to them by the federal government since in the eyes of the Reform Party it has no value and then the federal government would give that back in cash? I am not sure, but when we talk about transfers to the provinces, the tax points have to be included. They form part of that total entitlement, it is tax points in cash.

I want to illustrate that point. The hon. member is from British Columbia. No one has denied that cuts were made. Cuts had to be made. We were facing a $42 billion deficit. We cut $1.5 billion from the CHST cash transfers between 1993-94 and 1998-99 for British Columbia. Tax points grew by $1.2 billion. When that is offset, the actual cut that British Columbia experienced was some $300 million between 1993-94 and 1998-99.

If the hon. member does not want to recognize the tax points, I ask her to stand up in this House and advocate that the federal government take that room back.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not speak on behalf of the Reform Party when I say this. This quote is from the press release by the premiers in Saskatoon on August 7: “They expressed concern about unilateral federal cuts to the Canada health and social transfer, CHST, beginning in the 1994-95 fiscal year that now represent more than $6 billion per year. This is the transfer to provinces which helps support core health care services, post-secondary education and other social programs for Canadians. The federal government cut its funding for social programs through the CHST by 33% while at the same time spending on federal programs fell by just 6%”.

I would like to know whether the hon. member thinks the premiers across the country are playing with figures and are not being forthright in saying that this is how they see how the federal government unilaterally cut money that it had promised to the provinces.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be saying the same thing to the premiers. I asked the hon. member whether she was advocating that the provinces give back the tax points.

The premiers in their press release are also focusing on the cash transfers. The reality is that transfers are made up of total entitlements: cash and tax points.

I ask the hon. member again, what is her position, not the Reform Party's, but her own?

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my position is that when the federal government encroached on provincial jurisdiction in 1968-69, it made a commitment to those provinces in order to get them to buy into the new program it was proposing. That commitment by that Liberal government was that the federal government would in perpetuity fund it at 50%. That was the agreement the government had with the provinces at the time when they agreed to, or were forced to go into this program.

That is what I would like this federal government to do. Forget the 11%, the 14%, the 16% or whatever number it comes up with and return to the 50% commitment that it made to the provinces at the time. I am speaking on my own behalf that I think the government should follow through with the promise it made.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I indicate at the outset the support by the New Democratic Party for the ideas and the concept behind this resolution.

Today we are dealing with the number one issue facing the Canadian people, the number one issue that should be before parliament. I commend the Bloc for bringing this issue forward and want to indicate how I feel we need to devote our time and effort to address this most critical issue.

I also want to set the record straight. It is very important to do so in the face of the comments by Liberal members over the last number of days. They are suggesting, implying, that Liberals are in fact the pioneers of medicare and the greatest defenders of medicare at the very time when they are responsible for the demise of this very important universal program for all of Canada.

It is absolutely appalling and unacceptable for us to sit in the Chamber and hear the words of the Minister of Health and to see that kind of mischievous behaviour when in fact it is the policies of the government that have clearly put us in the difficult position we are in today.

I also want to set the record straight when it comes to the Reform Party. The Reform Party likes to evoke the name of Tommy Douglas on a regular basis. In one breath it talks about Tommy Douglas and in the same breath it talks about support for a two tier, parallel private health care system.

That was the antithesis of everything Tommy Douglas stood for and everything the CCF and the NDP fought for when they brought forward the idea of a universally accessible, publicly administered single tier health care system. Let us not forget that and let us not be fooled by the Reform Party. It pretends to be great defenders of medicare when it is firmly committed to destroying medicare as we know it today. Let us juxtapose the comments of both the Liberals and the Reformers with the rhetoric we have heard from previous and present Liberal and Reform members.

Let me remind Liberal members that when we went through the big fight 30 years ago to get a universal health insurance program they were the biggest obstacles to that whole development. I refer specifically to a Liberal MLA in the province of Manitoba who actually said that state medicine was a Frankenstein that people had created. That member went on to say that the medical professionals would soon be sucked into the jaws of a voracious socialist monster. We have to compare that to what members of the Reform have said in the House, in particular one member who said “I can get better health care in Florida than in socialized Canada”.

Canadians have to remember who is standing up for medicare. We have to think very hard about convincing both Liberals and Reformers about what we truly mean by medicare and what has to be done. Since we are setting the record straight with respect to the pioneers of medicare, I remind members of the words of Tommy Douglas because they are the essence of what we are dealing with:

Had I been a rich man's son the services of the finest surgeons would have been available. As an iron moulder's boy, I almost had my leg amputated before chance intervened and a specialist cured me without thought of a fee. All my adult life I have dreamed of the day when an experience like mine would be impossible and we would have in Canada a program of complete medical care without a price tag. And that is what we aim to achieve—the finest health service available to everyone regardless of ability to pay.

That is the origin of medicare. That is what we are trying to protect. Let me also remind members of the House about the words of Stanley Knowles who passed away almost a year and a half ago. He was also one of the strongest defenders of medicare. I quote from his speech in Gimli, Manitoba, in 1958:

The day will come when never again will any man, woman or child in Canada have to worry about a hospital bill, a doctor's bill or other health costs.

This is the aim and purpose of the overall health insurance which this party advocates. He went on to say:

Will there be any loss of freedom when all health care is available as one needs it? On the contrary, this will mark the beginning of a new and greater freedom, freedom from worry over health costs, freedom to enjoy the best health that medical sciences can make available to our people.

That is the legacy that we are trying to carry on today. We are faced with enormous pressures and obstacles from the Liberal government and the official opposition, the Reform Party. Our party will be devoting our time in parliament to preserve medicare and to do whatever we can to ensure that we maintain the idea of a universally accessible publicly administered single tier system.

It will not be easy. All we have to do is look at the situation today. We know the facts. We have heard over and over again how consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments at the federal level have eaten away at payments for health care. We know that this Liberal government took the biggest chunk out of health care spending in the history of medicare in 1995 when it introduced the Canada health and social transfer. We know about the $7 billion that it eliminated. We know the impact that had on health care systems across the country. We only have to open our newspapers wherever we may live to find out just what is happening.

I refer to an article that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press yesterday. It talks about how nurses are in tears because they are overworked, stressed out and not able to provide the quality care they envisage giving to their patients.

Whether we are talking about long waiting lists for diagnostic services, overcrowded emergency rooms, hospital beds being cut, or people being released from hospital without home care services, we know it is a result of serious cuts in health care spending that has happened across the country by the federal government and by many provincial governments.

I think specifically of my province of Manitoba where the provincial Conservative government has worked hand in hand with the cutback agenda of the federal government and has contributed to a very inadequate health care system. This is a very scary situation for the people of Manitoba.

The same can be said for the provinces of Alberta, Ontario and many others where governments are not committed to putting resources into health care and to trying to move the system to a holistic, preventive health care system.

All provinces are now saying the same thing. They are all saying that we need to stabilize the health care system. We need an immediate reinvestment in the transfer payments for health care. Not only are the provinces saying this, but for the first time in our history every major health care organization, every stakeholder, is saying the same.

In the last few days we have been lobbied by all major groups: the Health Action Lobby representing 27 national health and community organizations; the Canadian Health Care Association representing 1,000 regional health authorities, hospitals, health facilities and health service agencies; the Canadian Medical Association representing 46,000 doctors; the Canadian Nurses Association representing 11 provincial and territorial nurses associations; the National Federation of Nurses' Unions representing three-quarters of health care providers in our system that are nurses, thousands and thousands of nurses on the frontline; and the Canadian Health Coalition which has been fighting desperately to wake up the government to the need to restabilize our system and move forward.

It is clear that the opinion in the country is united and unanimous. There is only one message the government must hear. It must hear it today and must act immediately. As a minimum $2.5 billion must be put immediately into the transfer payments for health care to stabilize the system, to deal with the crises that we are all hearing about and perhaps deal with ourselves on a personal basis, and to bring some order to the system so that we can then build upon a solid foundation, go forward and implement the important goals we have talked about and heard about time and time again from the Liberals: the idea of a national home care plan and a national drug plan.

We cannot go forth with those important ideas until we stabilize the system and have the commitment of the federal government to work in co-operation with provincial and territorial governments to ensure we have the ability to go forward.

Let me conclude by bringing us back to our origins, to the pioneers of health care and specifically the words of Tommy Douglas. Let us not forget the true meaning of those words and the kind of direction he gave all of us. He said that he would not allow for the demise of medicare:

—because when we're talking about universal health care, we're talking about our sense of values and asking the questions: Do we think human life is important? On what moral basis should the wealthy receive greater access to medical care? Why should a stockbroker have more discretion over something as vital as health care than a teacher or a non-wealthy mother of four?

The only answer for you and me is that the best medicare which is available is something to which people are entitled by virtue of belonging to a civilized community.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to question the support of the NDP for medicare but I believe a little bias is showing through. The reality is that the Liberals brought in the Canada Health Act and the Liberals defended it. I can speak from experience when I say that some of the same NDP governments did not always support it as avidly as the party in Ottawa.

It is a known fact that we said we would reinvest in health care. We have already reinvested $1.5 billion so the cut is not really $7 billion any more. It is much lower than that.

Part of ensuring that medicare can continue is the fact that we have managed the finances of the country very well. In all this debate no one mentioned that all these provinces have benefited because of our good management.

Does anyone have any idea how much money the provinces have saved because interest rates are so much lower? It is a very large number. If all the savings the provinces have been able to make were added, they would at least become the equivalent of what we had to cut, not just from health but from all social programs.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberals are playing games with statistics. We know very well that the $1.5 billion they like to tout as some new money injected into health care is just nonsense.

All the government did was not move ahead on a cut that was promised for this year. We are still dealing with a base of $12.5 billion. That is $2.5 billion short of the $15 billion in the system when the government brought in its drastic changes and cutbacks in 1995.

Let us deal with the facts. Let us also remember that when it came to the origins of medicare, it was under a Liberal government that the Canada Health Act was brought in. History will not dispute that if it were not for the pressure and work of the CCF and NDP, people like Stanley Knowles and Tommy Douglas, the Liberals would not have acted. It took that kind of pressure to make it happen across the country.

Some would even say that the Liberals had to be dragged kicking and screaming to bring in this program. Today we have a Liberal government that is dismantling health care. I tell the member that we will make sure we do everything to keep the Liberals from eroding and killing medicare, even if it means taking them kicking and screaming to that point.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with about 98% of what the member said. The 2% I do not agree with was the cheap shot about Reform.

What will surprise her is that I was attracted to the Reform Party because of its commitment to the health care system. I invite all members in the House to pay attention. We are spending, thanks to the governments of the last 30 years, about $40 billion a year on interest because they could not manage the fiscal affairs in such a way as to keep us out of debt.

Just imagine what $40 billion a year would do in terms of providing educational opportunities and health care. What attracted me to Reform is that it listened to the people who said health care was the highest priority to them. Therefore it is to us, but we also are committed to running our financial affairs so that we can deliver on that.

My aunt is in hospital. She fell out of bed—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, but your time has expired.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that there is some common ground. We all are committed to convincing the Liberal government to reinvest in health care.

I am very concerned, though, about the clearly enunciated policies of the Reform Party around approval for a parallel private health care system. That would be absolutely the death of medicare, no matter how much money the federal government could be convinced to put into the system.

The Reform Party has not fully thought through what allowing for a two tier health care system would mean. I urge them to consider that position and to look at working together to preserve a universally accessible, publicly administered single tier system which is the envy of the world, in particular the envy of the United States. This was recently clearly stated by physicians from that country who said “Don't lose what you have”. We fought hard to get medicare. Do not let them take it away.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate the motion before us today because it fits in very well with our platform leading into the last election under the leadership of Mr. Charest.

Obviously we support this motion. We think it is critical that funding be restored to deliver good quality health care to Canadians.

One of the things I want to note, Mr. Speaker, and I think you have probably noted this as well, is that the health minister is not here for this debate. Can you believe it? The health minister is not here for this debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I would remind the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest that it is an established practice of the House that we do not refer to the presence or the absence of other members.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think too many people know who the health minister is because it is not the first time this has happened.

More important is the fact that the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister is the person leading the debate today. Does that not tell us something about the government, where its head is at in terms of health care and what is important? Obviously the most important thing to the government is the finance minister's position as it relates to health care. It has nothing to do with the health minister. This health minister has to be the weakest health minister we have had in parliament for many years.

Given the fact that the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister is carrying the debate on behalf of the government, and understanding that the health minister is not doing it, nor is the parliamentary secretary to the health minister doing it, and given the fact that the finance department is handling this debate today, I want to go back to 1993. This will give us an understanding as to why the finance department is leading the debate and not the Minister of Health, although I cannot obviously allude to his absence in the House, as you pointed out so clearly in your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

I am quoting from the red book of 1993. This was the book which helped the Liberals get elected in 1993. It basically outlined what they were going to do.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

It is good literature.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

A member opposite says that it is good literature. That is exactly what it is. It is just literature and words. It has nothing to do with reality and implementation. It is a corporate plan. Corporate Americans are going to take over our health care system in Canada. Give them time and they probably will.

I am quoting from page 77 of the infamous red book of 1993. It describes how a Liberal government will face the challenges of health care:

A Liberal government will face these challenges squarely, thoughtfully, and with confidence. Our approach will be based on our values. Our solutions will be predicated on our commitment to the five fundamental principles of our medicare system, and on our commitment to the continuing role, in financing and in other aspects, of the federal government in health care.

It worked. They were successful in winning the election of 1993. But what did they do? They came in with sort of a scorched earth policy in terms of health care. That is exactly what they did. Immediately they slashed $7 billion from the system.

The question is: How could they get away with it? Name one government in the history of this country that could ever get away with slashing $7 billion unilaterally from the health care system. The Conservative government, despite all of its faults between 1984 and 1993, could never have gotten away with that. It did not even try.

[An hon. member]

They just left us with a $42 billion deficit.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

We will talk about that as well. I was a member of the finance committee and I will talk about any of those issues. I will stand to defend everything that we did.

They slashed $7 billion from the health care system. How did they get away with it? It was simply because they did not have any opposition here in the House of Commons. There was none.

There has to be someone in the House with a social conscience. In the last parliament the official opposition was the Bloc. Bloc members were focused and are still focused on one issue and one issue only. They did not fight for health care in the House of Commons between 1993 and 1997. Never. They are only using it today as a political ploy.

The other major party in the House of Commons at that time was the Reform Party. In terms of its strategic position, the Reform Party was somewhere to the far right of Attila the Hun. There is nothing the government could do to health care that would concern it. Its position was to scrap the Canada Health Act. The only time in the House when I actually have a smile on my face when I hear the Minister of Health speak is when he reminds the Reform Party of what its policy is in regards to health care.

They get away with it here on the floor of the House of Commons.

The other thing that is interesting is that the Liberals' provincial cousins back home were nodding in silent agreement as they cut the $7 billion. They were saying “What more can we do for you?” Premier Frank McKenna did not open his mouth when these cuts were coming down. Why? Because it was his friend Jean Chrétien who was doing it. He did not open his mouth. So they got away with it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As the hon. member undoubtedly knows, we do not refer to members presently sitting by name. We refer to them by their portfolio or by their constituency.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the person I was talking about, whose initials are JC, would be the Prime Minister of Canada, often referred to as JC by the solicitor general in conversation.

The Prime Minister was allowed to do it. The provincial premiers silently nodded in agreement as the Liberals extracted $7 billion from the health care system. There is no government on the face of this earth that could get away with that in a parliamentary democracy.

I endorse exactly what the member for Winnipeg North Centre has articulated. It is correct. Every major medical association in Canada has told us the same thing. To be precise, the Canadian Medical Association has said that there has to be an immediate injection of $2.5 billion in the system. The nurses' associations are telling us the same thing, within degrees of dollars here and there.

Health care is delivered by human beings. That is what the minister forgets. At the end of the day, human care has to be there. That has been articulated well by the nurses' associations and the doctors across the country. Sadly, because of these draconian cuts in health care, some of our brightest, most highly educated, most dedicated workers are having to go elsewhere to seek their profession.

I support an injection of funds in health care. It is purely and truly consistent with our position as a party. I look forward to questions and answers from my colleagues.