Debates of March 23rd, 1998

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

It has had to make them largely because of the federal government. It is obvious that my hon. colleague is worried that there will be a new leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec with a greater chance of winning the election. He is perhaps getting started on his provincial campaign. Who knows? We might lose the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. If he were to move to the provincial level, it would be a great loss to the House of Commons.

One really important thing to bear in mind with respect to health is that, since 1993, the government has not kept up its end of the bargain. The public was led to believe that the system was in great shape, and assistance to the provinces was cut, but the government had not put its own house in order. This is important.

The unilateral cuts completely destabilized Canada's health care system. Afterwards, when finances returned to an adequate level, the government began spending again, without regard for the criteria which make Canada's health and education system a shared federal and provincial responsibility. Education is certainly provincial.

What I mean is that the government, as the minister was saying in the House today, plans to incorporate new services in the health care systems. So while everyone is saying that the transfers are inadequate, the government is preparing to set up a home care system. This is entirely a provincial matter. And it has not mentioned the cost.

Currently, we spend between $2.4 and $2.8 billion a year in Canada on home care. The government is preparing a proposal, but, as we have seen today, not too many of the Minister of Health's colleagues are giving their support to this new structure. They are sending out messages saying “We are looking after health; it is a priority. We are cutting, but then we will set up new programs”. But the problem of the cuts made in the first place has not been resolved.

Not so long ago, during the election campaign last year, there was talk of a national pharmacare program. What has become of it? We hear no mention of it these days.

However, we hear “We are not sure that the provinces will go for a drug plan. It may not be popular. The aging of the population is a popular topic. We will talk about home care. That should grab them”.

They are talking endlessly about home care. However, we do not know what it will cost nor who will manage it. And in the meantime, there is no mention of a drug plan—nothing.

Today, the minister told us that the figure of $12.5 was recommended by the National Forum on Health. I am not talking about the one this weekend, but of the one from a few years ago.

This figure was recommended by the Forum, but we must be careful. The Forum also called for new health care measures, new funding for health care, for home care and for pharmacare. That meant that the government's contribution was not $12.5 billion, but a lot more.

The $12.5 billion is strictly for transfers. But knowing that home care currently costs billions of dollars, the Forum said more money had to be invested. They are not quite saying that in the House.

Health is a very important matter. Even the Liberal Party members said so on the weekend. Unfortunately, the minister does not seem to want to listen, nor do his cabinet colleagues, because there is nothing new on the table.

We are asking for some stabilization and guarantee for the provinces. The provinces must be the ones that manage Canada's health care sector, to avoid any federal government involvement. As we know, our Liberal friends have a tendency to take over various responsibilities and to do a bit of politics in the process.

Health is a provincial matter. We hope that if the federal government finds some money, it will transfer it to the provinces. One possible source is the $2.5 billion. An amount of $2.5 billion was set aside in the budget this year for a program that will begin in the year 2000 or 2001, and that will cost about $200 million annually.

The government could have taken $200 million, starting in the year 2000 or 2001, and put the $2.5 billion back into the health sector, through the transfers to the provinces. This would have shown that the government truly gives priority to the issue.

It could have used the money to give a tax break to taxpayers and help them face the music. But the government did none of that. It is setting some money aside. It is taking $2.5 billion and will put it there. The interest should normally go to the millennium scholarship foundation, but we are not sure whether that will happen. We will have to wait and see.

The Reform Party member who chairs the public accounts committee pointed this out last week.

The New Democratic motion is good for the health sector. Its purpose is to make sure we know what is going on. However, it is ineffective, because even Statistics Canada releases figures and standards on Canadians' health.

It is very difficult to check in the field to see if the transfers are adequate. However, we do know that they are currently inadequate. Some unilateral cuts were made. The shortfall will continue for the next few years and this must absolutely stop.

The government must secure the transfers to the provinces with tax points, and it must maintain an equalization system to make sure that the poorest provinces continue to get help.

I will conclude by reminding members that, with the $12.5 billion, seven out of ten Canadian provinces will get less money than they did last year.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to speak in favour of this amendment to the resolution put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre. It is a very good idea and one of a series of very good ideas that have come from the member for Winnipeg North Centre.

As has been pointed out already, it is interesting to note that the language of this amendment finds its origins in a priority resolution passed at the Liberal policy convention this past weekend. It seems a lot of us were glued to the TV set watching this convention. It obviously has an impact on all of our lives. We had to keep a very close watch on the things that happened at that convention because they have a severe impact on a lot of us.

It warrants reading the resolution that was adopted at the policy convention. I can find no fault in the language, the tone or the content of the resolution. It states:

Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada encourage the federal government to develop a process to continuously measure the quality of health care in Canada and at the same time to ensure a national standard of health care for all Canadians.

It has a lot of merit. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said that this amendment was not necessary because there was already a provision. The Minister of Finance already does an annual analysis of the CHST's spending. He may in fact do an analysis of how the money is being spent, but nowhere in that analysis will it record or review whether it is an adequate amount of money to uphold the standards of the CHA. That is where the amendment stands separate. It is necessary, still has merit as a resolution and should be adopted.

The resolution adopted on the weekend merely indicates that the Liberals cannot help but listen to what the Canadian people from all walks of life have been saying: young, old, across all party lines, interprovincial. When asked their top priority in the spending patterns of the Canadian government, what they wanted to see money spent on, to a person quality health care ranked in the top three priorities.

I can back this up with two recent surveys. The first one is a scientific survey conducted by the Angus Reid pollsters on behalf of the Canadian Medical Association. The second one was my own informal and unscientific survey of voters in my riding of Winnipeg Centre.

When I sent out a survey to the people of my riding and asked them to list in order of priority the issues they found most pressing and the issues they wanted the government to act on in the near future, every one of the people who chose to answer listed quality health care as their number one priority in the list of eight or nine things we asked about. The other items included job creation, education, health care, crime and urban violence, and a number of other issues. The top three were health care, education and job creation, followed shortly after by crime and urban violence which is another issue.

It is difficult to ignore that kind of response. When people in a riding are asked what they care about and all of them come back with the same answer, we cannot help but listen. I have a feeling that similar surveys are being done by other MPs and they are getting the same answers. Therefore it comes as no surprise and does not indicate any great enlightenment on behalf of the Liberal Party that the resolution should show up at its policy convention. It is simply due to the fact that the Liberals are finally listening to what the Canadian people really want.

The other survey is more scientific and perhaps has more merit. It was done by the Angus Reid research group for the Canadian Medical Association. Specific questions were asked in that survey.

Results indicated that in 1997, 65% of people reported that waiting times in emergency departments had worsened. That figure is up from 54% in 1996. Sixty-four per cent reported that the availability of nurses in hospitals had worsened. That figure is up from 58% in 1996. Sixty-three per cent reported that waiting times for surgery had worsened. That figure is up from 53% in 1996. It is no secret that this issue weighs heavily on the minds of Canadians.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance stood up and argued that the floor of the Canada health and social transfer is actually being increased to $12.5 billion. This is an illusion. It is creative financing to the worst degree. As has been pointed out by others, when you go from $19 billion down to $11 billion and then crank it back up to $12.5 billion, you are not giving anybody anything. You are simply lessening the amount of cutbacks. Many figures have been bandied about to describe the cumulative effect that has. All we really need to know is that it is the biggest single cutback in the history of Canada's medical system.

I cite these things to point out that the well-being of our health care system is of prime importance. The amendment put forward by the member for Winnipeg North Centre is on behalf of Canadians to try to accurately reflect what their real concerns are.

I will speak about the Canada health and social transfer as an aspect of this whole picture. We must remember what the National Council of Welfare said about the Canada health and social transfer when it was first introduced. It called it the most disastrous social policy initiative in the post-war era. It felt very strongly to use language of that nature.

Many of us view the redistribution of wealth through federal transfer payments as the single greatest achievement of Canadian federalism. We all know that we have a very tenuous grasp on the concept of Canadian federalism. One of the things which has kept this country united is that the have not provinces could expect the support of a strong central government as it redistributed the wealth of the nation. We have seen that eroded slowly but surely in recent years.

In my own political life we have seen the established programs financing, EPF, change to CAP, then a cap on CAP, then ultimately the Canada health and social transfer. Every step of the way has resulted in less and less operating capital for the provinces to deliver the services wanted by Canadians. Slowly and surely we have seen that erosion. The figures have been pointed out that 50:50 funding has been lowered to somewhere between 10% and 20% funding.

The argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is that this amendment is not necessary because this type of review is already under way annually. The review that is under way will not answer the fundamental question of whether the level of funding is adequate to ensure the health and viability of the Canada Health Act. It may study the way the money is being spent but it does not study the fundamental question of whether it is enough.

We suggest that this amendment should be adopted as broad interests, certainly those who voted for us, are very concerned. It would serve them well if we adopted this amendment.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Motion No. 3 regarding the proposal to establish an annual report from the Minister of Finance on the adequacy of the cash portion of the Canada health and social transfer to sustain the principles of the Canada Health Act.

As the hon. member for Medicine Hat indicated, the Reform caucus, the official opposition, is opposed to this motion. I recognize there is a worthwhile principle at play here, namely an attempt to increase transparency and accountability in the federal government's management of the CHST cash transfers. Ultimately however we are concerned that this motion would increase the federal government's meddling ability in what is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction under our constitutional framework, namely health care.

I do think it is an opportune motion for us to reflect, as the member who spoke just before me did, on the way in which the government has managed the cash transfers to the provinces under the health and social transfer.

In the leaders debate during the 1993 election the current Leader of the Opposition asked the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister specifically what the Liberal Party's commitment was to the level of federal transfer payments for health care. He asked the now Prime Minister if he would keep transfers at the current level and the now Prime Minister responded “I said yesterday in replying to Monsieur Bouchard that I promise that they will not go down and I hope that we will be able to increase them”.

The current Prime Minister running for office in 1993 representing the entire Liberal Party of Canada and all of its candidates said that he hoped that they would be able to increase them and the health care transfers would not go down. Those were the words he said then, words that were echoed in Liberal red book one which spoke about maintaining the health care transfers at their current level. That came from the leader of a party that spent four and a half years in the House, from 1988 to 1993, relentlessly criticizing the then government for having cut the very same health transfers.

This government has excelled in its acts of political hypocrisy. Among those many acts of political hypocrisy, from the GST to free trade, to NAFTA, perhaps the greatest one of all was for the Liberals to trumpet their traditional Liberal commitment to health care funding but then proceed, once having taken the reins of power, to ruthlessly slash those transfers not by 5% or 10% but by 35%. It was done unilaterally and without consultation or input from the provinces that have to deliver those programs. The $7 billion cut in those transfer payments was passed on to the provincial premiers, governments and legislatures who have to administer those programs.

Very few things get me more upset than hearing Liberal MPs and ministers rise in this House and criticize people like Premier Harris of Ontario for his management of health care. I hear Liberal MP after Liberal MP criticize Premier Harris for having increased health care funding by $1 billion, all the while reducing taxes for Ontarians, while absorbing $2 billion in transfer cuts for health care imposed by the federal government. The hypocrisy is truly shocking.

Hon. members opposite know that it is shocking. I had the great misfortune of attending the Liberal Party of Canada convention down the street. I sat and listened to the resolutions brought before the floor. Very few of them were debated of course. After all, the delegates to that convention know that policy for the Liberal Party is made in the dark backrooms of the Prime Minister's office and not in the front rooms of any convention where the public could actually monitor it.

Liberals were asking “Why did we cut these health care transfers?” That is a good question because there are very few members of this House who are more in favour of cutting government spending than I and my colleagues in the Reform Party.

We believe that when it comes to cutting government spending we have to create priorities. This government chose to make the wrong priorities. When it came to the cash transfers from the CHST the government cut $7 billion instead of cutting $7 billion out of subsidies to crown corporations, out of subsidies to businesses, out of regional development programs, out of hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and handouts to the Liberal Party's favourite special interest groups.

That is the choice the Liberal Party made. Yes, it had to cut spending, but no it did not have to cut it from what was the highest priority program area of all Canadians, which is public health care. This government should really hang its head in shame when it comes to considering what it has done to health care in this country.

The other thing I find so remarkably galling is to hear the Minister of Health and his cabinet and caucus colleagues pontificate about the great Liberal commitment to the federal role in health care and that they are going to penalize those provinces if they do not keep in compliance with the Canada Health Act. They are going to protect health care they say.

What have the Liberals done? They and the previous government together have managed to cut the federal government's role in cash transfers for health care from 50% of total acute health care spending to under 20%. The Liberals talk tough but they have taken away the only leverage they have with the provinces to ensure compliance with the Canada Health Act.

I am not sure that that is necessarily a bad thing. I believe as I said in speaking to Motion No. 1, in the principle of subsidiarity, in the principle that says the level of government which is the lowest and the closest to the people is generally the best order of government to deliver services. Senior levels of government, more distant and remote levels of government such as the federal government ought only to be involved in the direct delivery of programs when such delivery needs to be done on a national basis.

I think that MLAs, MPPs and MNAs and provincial governments elected by provincial voters and provincial taxpayers know better than we do in this remote place in Ottawa how to deliver quality health care, public access to universal health care than we do. We ought to give them the flexibility to make the choices they need to reform health care, to ensure quality health care for all Canadians. That is why this motion would simply extend the meddling influence of the federal government in a field which the Fathers of Confederation in their wisdom properly attributed to the provinces.

In closing I hope that if any of the Liberals speak on this motion they will explain to us, to their constituents and to all Canadians how it is they can talk about increasing health care transfers in this budget by $1.5 billion when in fact it is not an increase at all. It is a reduction in the decrease.

It reminds me of the old days when the Tory government would say that it was cutting spending when in fact all it was doing was reducing the increase. Now the Liberals say they are increasing spending on health care when all they are doing is reducing the decrease.

Why can we not just look at these numbers straight and simple? After the so-called $1.5 billion reinvestment in health care in this recent budget, health care transfers, cash transfers to the provinces will still be less than they were four years ago when the Liberals took power in 1993. The Liberals have abdicated their ability to dictate health care policy to the provinces. We say let the provinces be responsible and accountable to their taxpayers, to the real consumers of health care.

That is why I call on my hon. colleagues to defeat this motion.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of brief comments I would like to add on to the issues the hon. member for Calgary Southeast just touched on.

I want to touch on a few points that were brought forward by the member for Calgary Southeast because I think they are very prudent points.

A lot of the discussion that has been going on today and over the course of the weekend at the Liberal national convention surrounded the issue of health care. Under the current mechanism where the government has raised the ceiling for health care from $11 billion to $12.5 billion one would think that was actually trying to inject more money back into one of our true priority areas, that being health care.

But in my province of New Brunswick over the next few years the transfer payments with respect to the CHST will actually plummet from $322 million down to $311 million. Health care is going to be cut in the province of New Brunswick.

I challenge the government. If it seriously wants to make health care a priority under the mechanism for the funding of health care, not only should three provinces have increased funding under the CHST—those being British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario—but the other provinces should have increased funding as well. I am speaking on behalf of my home province of New Brunswick.

I am making this point in a very constructive fashion. When the government revisits the issue in terms of what its true priority areas are it should revisit the amount of money being allocated toward some of the smaller provinces, including New Brunswick, to ensure that we have more money for health care and not less.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us this afternoon is:

The Minister shall table in the House of Commons, in September of each year commencing in the year 1998 and ending in the year 2003, a report assessing the adequacy of the cash portion of the total entitlement referred to in subsection (3) to sustain the principles of the Canada Health Act—

The member for Medicine Hat indicated that he and his caucus were opposing the motion because they believe that these kinds of programs should be delivered closer to the people, a point that was added to a few moments ago by the member for Calgary Southeast. The member for Medicine Hat said that otherwise there would be protesters on the lawns of the legislatures. That is not why the member for Winnipeg North Centre is introducing this motion this afternoon.

My adopted province is the province of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewanians feel very strongly about medicare. We feel it is our gift to this country. The CCF introduced medicare and funded it on its own back in 1962. It was then adopted as a national program by the Liberal Party under Prime Minister Pearson in 1967 and was funded by the federal government.

Under the Canada assistance program and established programs financing appropriate funds were delivered to ensure that we had a national quality health care program from coast to coast to coast.

What we are seeing, to our chagrin, in recent years is that the health care program is becoming more and more strained at the edges. To go back to the province of Saskatchewan, with the sharp reductions in federal funding to health care beginning in 1994 and onward, the Saskatchewan government has backfilled every cent that the feds have withdrawn from health care.

As previous members have pointed out, all that is being suggested now is that the cuts are not going to be as deep as were originally envisaged. The government is not actually putting more money in, it is just not taking as much out.

I said that we backfilled in Saskatchewan. The budget was tabled last week. Once again health tops the agenda in terms of the amount of money that is spent. It is now $1.7 billion in a province with just over one million people. It is a significant amount of money. It makes it very difficult for the province to do some of the other things that need to be done because this government is not living up to its financial obligations in this area and has not done so for several years.

I think there is a serious debate going on in this country whereby larger, wealthier provinces which do not have such a large percentage of their budget going to health care are going to begin, in effect, to thumb their noses at the carrot and stick approach—mostly the stick approach—taken by Ottawa. The carrots are getting increasingly smaller and the provinces will say that they will go it alone, that they will provide the kind of health care they think is appropriate.

That will be the end of any kind of national health care program in this country. We will be into a two-tier system, which is, I suspect, really why the Reform Party is opposing this motion today.

We have acknowledged and given credit where credit is due in this House. The government has set, over recent years, deficit targets to reduce and now eliminate the deficit in this country. I believe I am correct in saying that the government is also establishing debt reduction targets. We fail to see why it is hesitant to introduce a target for health care; to do an annual check-up on health care, if you will, to see how it is performing and what is required to ensure that this gift from Saskatchewan continues well into the next century throughout the country. There is not only a debt and deficit problem in this country, there is also a social deficit that we are very concerned about.

Medicare has been the declaration that all Canadians deserve quality health care, regardless of how much money they have. We have said consistently that a family's health should never have to depend on a family's wealth. That is the point we are trying to make here, except we will substitute province or territory for family. The wealth of a province or a territory should not depend on the health of the people who live in that province or territory.

In recent years the Liberal government has cut health care by almost $4 billion. It has opened the door to privatization, as I have suggested. It has indulged in restricted service and user fees that signal the arrival of a two-tier system: the best care for the rich and a lower quality of care for everybody else.

It has cut the promotion of good health, including programs to prevent domestic violence, to control the spread of AIDS and even to discourage smoking.

Three quarters of all health care costs are funded through medicare or other provincial plans. Many important services remain unavailable to those who do not have private insurance or who are not eligible for provincial or territorial programs.

The Canada Health Act requires provincial health plans to be universal, accessible, portable, comprehensive and publicly administered in order for them to receive federal funding.

Both the National Forum on Health and the Canadian Health Coalition have determined that the current $11 billion, which will increase to $12.5 billion, minimum payment to the provinces promised by the Liberals is simply not enough to maintain those principles.

Canadians know all of this. Canadians who were at the Liberal Party convention last weekend know this as well. That is why they are concerned about the direction or the lack of direction, the inability or the refusal of this government to set targets.

I submit that members opposite should be supporting this very reasonable proposal put forward by the member for Winnipeg North Centre.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the major points that I think need to be made were made by the member for Medicine Hat and the member for Calgary Southeast. However, I cannot help but comment on what the last member, the member for Palliser, mentioned when he said that Saskatchewan was one of the few places that had put all its money back into health care.

My mother happens to live in Saskatchewan. I left Saskatchewan around the medicare issue. Certainly the complaints I have heard on returning to Saskatchewan indicate something quite different from what the hon. member just told the House.

The key issue is the fact that the federal government has cut 30% plus from health care transfers to the provinces. While it has done that it has kind of hid under a rock when it comes to taking any credit for the cuts in health care and has left it totally to the provinces to bear. I will not say whose responsibility that is, but Canadians should be aware of the fact that this federal government cut those massive amounts of dollars.

The reality we need to be aware of—and certainly they tell us this every time we meet—is that our constituents are extremely concerned about health care. They want the very best of health care for themselves and their families. We would be missing the boat if we did not take that message to heart and did not seriously look at what we should be doing to maintain and improve our health care system.

No matter whom we talk to, they would agree that the health care system was in desperate need of reform. There were too many hospitals. There were too many duplications of services, too many boards and too many extremes in the health care system. It did need some major reform.

The bottom line is that in creating that system the people closest to the system know what they want. They know the standards they want and they should be the ones to make that determination.

We had better get on record as mentioning that the biggest threat to our health care and our social programs is the $45 billion interest payment we waste every year. While we will spend $12 billion plus on health care this year, we will spend $14 billion on education and $22 billion on pensions. We do not get any services for the $45 billion in interest payments. Until the government recognizes and deals with that we will not solve that social problem.

We must also look at how to fix the health care system. The bottom line is not that we spend more money. We need to reorganize our spending and all the waste that occurs in Ottawa. That would provide lots of money to fix the health care system.

I would propose to the House and to the provincial governments that would be delivering this service that they involve health care providers.

On a fairly frequent basis I meet with nurses in my constituency who tell me the sorts of things that are wrong with the health care system. They know as they are delivering that service on a daily basis. I also meet with doctors in the constituency. They know exactly what is wrong and exactly what needs to be fixed. The most important people of all, the grassroots people, also know what they want and what they want the health care system to deliver.

Rather than asking the federal government to do this, we should let health care givers as well as the people receiving the service be involved.

The feds cannot expect to control the health care system when it gives less than 20% of the funds. They cannot control the system if they do not provide the money. It is a matter of put up or shut up and a matter of opposing this amendment because we do not need more federal involvement. We need to get the provinces and the people receiving the service involved.

In conclusion, health care is the number one issue. I think all of us agree with that. Getting the very best health care is what we should be concerned about. In terms of who can deliver that, I am putting to this House that it is the actual care givers in the community, the provincial responsibility and the people who are getting the service who will make it all happen.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with representatives of all parties opposite and I believe you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That any recorded divisions requested on report stage motions of Bill C-28 be deemed deferred to Wednesday, March 25, 1998 at the end of the time provided for Private Members' Business.

(Motion agreed to)

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 3 put forth by the NDP member is something we do not agree on. I am not going to support it. As my colleagues mentioned before very eloquently, it speaks to a larger involvement in the federal government in an issue, according to our Constitution, that is a provincial issue.

I would like to get to the heart of this problem on health care. It is something that has been used for decades as a political football in this country. If you defend the status quo you are looked on as being a white knight, a hero. This government and other governments have done that. They have said they champion the Canada Health Act, that we have the best health care system in the world and anyone who disagrees with that is bad, an enemy of the poor, an enemy of health care and wants a U.S. style health care system.

That is absolute and utter nonsense. The cold hard reality in our country today is that health care is not being provided to Canadians at a time when they need it. In our country from coast to coast, from emergency departments to operating theatres, from old age homes to chronic care facilities, to out-patient departments, Canadians are not getting their health care when they need it. The reality is there simply is not enough money in the system.

Certainly cuts have had to be made. They were made wisely and they were made judiciously. Cuts are continuing to be made today. They are not cutting the fat out of the system, they are cutting into the muscle and bone of a system that Canadians rely on in their time of greatest need.

When you are sick and realize that our health care system is not there for you, you do not have time to politically lobby because you are fighting for your life. This government and previous governments have stayed with the status quo in spite of the fact that Canadians are not getting their health care system when they need it.

People who are old and in need of a new hip and are in severe pain wait a year and a half for that new hip. People who need a simple 20 minute surgery on their wrist wait nine months to get that surgery. People who are elderly and need new knees will wait nine months to a year. People who need bypass surgery can wait six months. People are waiting two days to get into the intensive care unit while they sit in emergency departments or, worse, they sit waiting for a bed in a cold, dark hallway in a hospital. By any stretch of anyone's imagination that is not health care when a person medically needs it.

There is a myth put forward that we have enough resources in the system that people are getting their health care when they need it and the Canada Health Act and its five principles are being upheld. That is completely untrue.

Canadians are not getting their health care in a timely fashion. Furthermore, if you have the bucks, you get the health care. Twenty-five per cent of the money that is spent today in health care comes right out of the pockets of people. It is money that is paid by them to get health care. If you do not have the money, you do not get the service. These involve surcharges for physiotherapy and they involve extra charges for a wide variety of services.

This is the most graphic example of the multi-tier system we already have. If a person is injured and on workers compensation, the government will take their money. The workers compensation board will pay to have that person put at the head of the line in a public system to get his or her surgery done ahead of somebody else who is not injured in a WCB case. In other words, preferential treatment is given to those on WCB.

The system we have today favours the rich and compromises the poor. The examples I gave demonstrate very clearly that Canadians are not getting their essential services when they need them, which demonstrates again that the Canada Health Act principles are being violated in a most egregious fashion. In the rich country we have today we do not have to accept that. There are solutions and ways to make a better Canada Health Act system, a made in Canada health act system that enables Canadians to get their health care when they medically need it.

We do need more resources in the system. Critics from the other side say there is enough money in the system right now. When pressed for answers, they can only say that we need to put more efficiencies into the system. No other specifics are forthcoming.

We have to face the facts that not enough resources are in the Canada Health Act today to provide for the services Canadians need. When we look into the future, when we see a population that is getting older as demographics change, when we see how few people will be in the workforce, we recognize there will be fewer resources available.

How do we provide the resources to provide the essential services Canadians need without raising taxes, because raising taxes is not an option? If we amend the Canada Health Act to allow private clinics and private services where only private moneys are exchanged, completely separate from the public system and where there is no interchange, then people would have an option. They would be able to access the public system when they chose to and access the private system when they wanted to. There would be no mixing.

That way two separate systems would be created and there would be more money on a per capita basis in the public system, as some people would take some of their services into the public system. In other words, there would be more money in health care in Canada without raising taxes. The people who chose to be in our public system would get better health care than we have today.

Is it unequal? Yes. I would argue that first of all we have an unequal system today. Is it not better to have an unequal system that provides for better health care access for all people than the system we have today that provides for unequal access, particularly for the poor?

The rich will always be able to get health care when they need it, for they go south. In fact, we spend over $1 billion a year south of the border for health care that should be given here.

If we were to amend the Canada Health Act, if we were to allow private clinics and private medical services in an entirely private setting where there is no mixing of the private and the public, not only would people have a choice, not only would all Canadians have better access to health care, but we would also bring patients from the United States to buy their services here at two-thirds the price of services in the United States. This would provide for employment, nurses, physicians and health care personnel. In other words, we would be able to drag a huge amount of capital from the United States and have it spent in Canada, which would dramatically create a lot of jobs.

We do not need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We do not want an American style health care system which is deplorable in many ways. We want to make sure that people in our country, particularly those who are poorest, will have access to health care when they need it.

Good health care is not waiting a year and a half to see an orthopaedic surgeon. Good health care is not waiting nine months to have a 20 minute operation so a person can go back to work. Good health care is not being turfed out of hospital 24 hours after having a baby. Good health care is ensuring that Canadians get the health care services they require in an affordable fashion and in a medically necessary and timely fashion.

That is what the Canada Health Act is all about. These are the principles that were wisely fought for decades ago. These are the things we stand for as Canadians. However, that is not what is happening out there today in our country.

For heaven's sake, I ask the government to please listen to alternative solutions in order to build a better, made in Canada health act.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on the motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to order adopted earlier this day, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, March 25 at the end of Private Members' Business.

May we have the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to question the government on the asbestos issue, asking the government why it was not showing more haste in lodging with the World Trade Organization a complaint about France's ban on the use of asbestos on French territory.

The answer I was given was definitely insufficient, and that is why, this evening, I am giving the government the opportunity to make up for it by clearly stating its position.

Let us briefly review the facts. First, a commission of the European Council recently recommended that asbestos be banned throughout Europe, in all European countries.

Needless to say that the consequences of such a ban would adversely affect our asbestos industries, particularly those in Quebec.

In addition, last week, we learned that the federal government would rather go the diplomatic way and that it had signed with five other asbestos producing countries, namely Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Swaziland, a memorandum stating the merits of this substance.

What I find somewhat strange and regrettable at the same time is the fact that, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for natural resources, to this day, I still have not received any document explaining what this document signed with five other producing countries is all about. Therefore, I welcome all the more this opportunity, tonight, to ask that the government provide us with information, so that we know exactly what is going on.

Members will recall that, last week, Belgian reporters toured the Bell mine in Quebec. Here is what they had to say. Peter Van Dooran said “Either the Belgian people are crazy to be afraid of asbestos or the people working in this mine are.” Obviously, they were impressed by what they saw. We have a good case on the asbestos issue.

I will also quote what a departmental official said: “The issue is not whether or not Canada will file a complaint before the WTO, but when”.

Finally, I will conclude with a quote from another Belgian journalist, who said: “Three or four years ago, asbestos was not an issue in Belgium, but Canada's representations are one year too late”.

The federal government dragged its feet on the Pacific salmon issue and on the Atlantic cod issue, and it has imposed quotas on softwood lumber. Canada has shown a flagrant lack of courage. It would be possible to go before the WTO. The smallest countries in the world will be respected through the mechanisms put in place by the WTO. If Quebec were a sovereign state, we would have gone before the WTO a long time ago to ensure that our asbestos is protected.

I am looking forward to hearing what the government has to say on this subject.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the objective of the Government of Canada in partnership with Quebec, the industry, unions and local communities is to maintain market access for asbestos. The Prime Minister raised this issue last fall with his counterparts from the U.K. and France.

The issue was also raised on a number of occasions between senior Canadian officials and their counterparts. Our officials held exploratory discussions on WTO options with interested partners as early as September 1997. On November 26 and again on January 28 the deputy minister for international trade held subsequent consultations with these same partners. On February 10 the deputy minister also held a conference call with stakeholders to discuss the next steps on this file.

It was made clear that the Canadian government would prefer to seek a resolution of this issue through diplomatic means as opposed to moving right now to the WTO. We are prepared to go to the WTO at the right time but we prefer to continue our crucial dialogue with the French government.

We organized gatherings of producers in London in December and in Brussels in January and February to work on a common strategy for the defence of chyrsotile asbestos. We believe that scientific data favour a controlled approach. A recent European technical paper raises questions about the growing use of asbestos bans in Europe as a means of protecting public health.

Canada attaches the highest priority to protecting export markets for chyrsotile asbestos and we will pursue every option available.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.)