Debates of March 2nd, 2000

Progressive Conservative

Diane St-Jacques Progressive Conservative Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, yes, I believe that by his statements, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is carrying on the strategy of provocation used during the last 30 years by the government to get its way. It uses provocation tactics against Quebec, it tries to find solutions, but in the end it does not find any, which is detrimental not only to Quebec but to the whole of Canada.

I believe the government should listen to what the needs are. I do not know if it is whether it has difficulty understanding. If businesses did not listen to what the needs of their customers were, they would go bankrupt. We have a government that is not listening to what the people's needs are and that is continuing to manage the country's affairs as it pleases, that is by invading provincial jurisdictions. Ultimately, this leads nowhere.

I hope that after listening to the comments made by all the members the government will finally understand that the situation is critical and that it must take action immediately.

SupplyGovernment Orders

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my colleague. There was one area I was not clear on and it may have been something I missed in the translation.

The member indicated that she would be prepared to support the motion but that she had some concerns with the last portion of our motion. As I read that, it is that the government take the necessary steps to prohibit private for profit hospitals and stop the growth of private for profit health care in Canada. I just wonder if she as a member of the Conservative Party could elaborate on what aspects of that she has some trouble with me.

SupplyGovernment Orders

Progressive Conservative

Diane St-Jacques Progressive Conservative Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, yes, it is true there is a part of the motion I do not immediately accept. I do not think we can simply suggest that privatization be rejected without further study.

Often decisions are made without thorough consideration. We say we dismiss this issue because it cannot be done. However, have some studies been done? Have we thoroughly considered the issue? This is often a problem with governments; they implement programs, but never examine their impact. Finally, at the end of the program, they come to the conclusion that it did not work. We have no system to assess its impact during or even before its implementation.

Consequently, I am not willing to dismiss a private system out of hand, because it has not been thoroughly examined. We must examine the issue and, if we realize this is not really the solution, then we can dismiss it. But if we do not thoroughly know the issue, we can say we should simply examine it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and pleasure for me to rise today in the House of Commons to speak to the motion introduced in the House by the New Democratic Party of Canada.

The proud legacy of this party is that of Tommy Douglas who brought into the country in Saskatchewan the first medicare system amid great opposition. It has been mentioned today by the member for Winnipeg North that he spoke about it at the time and said that we should never ever forget that once this system was introduced it would continue to be under attack. There will always be those waiting in the shadows who see money to be made in the health care system regardless of what it means for the health of Canadians.

I will be sharing my time with another member of the New Democratic Party. I know the Minister of Health would love to take 10 more minutes to try to clarify some of the muddy waters we have heard about already today, but I will be sharing my time with a member of my party who will be speaking to protect our health care or medicare system.

When the history of this place is written, I think historians will look back on budget 2000 introduced by the government and its effect on health care and say that it was a watershed budget, that it was a turning point in the history of the Liberal Party and Liberal ideology.

It was not long ago that the Liberal Party once saw a role for government in the lives of Canadians. That should not surprise to anyone because that is the attitude of Canadians; that is the ideology and culture of this country. That is why we had such proud institutions, such as the CBC and passenger rail services, as a notion that there should be a good standard of living for all Canadians and, more than anything, there should be protection of health care.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.

The ideology in the country was that no matter where we lived, whether it was in the east, the centre, the north or the west, we would be entitled to quality health care and equal health care. This is what made Canadians proud.

Over the last five to seven years the government has chipped away at those values. It has chipped away at the cultural institutions. It has chipped away at the notion of regional economic expansion. It has chipped away at some of the ideas of the founders of the Liberal Party, people like Monique Bégin and social scientists like Tom Kent. People who once had a role to play in that party do not anymore. Regrettably, the Canadian public tolerated that because we were told there was deficit. We were told that we had to sacrifice many things on the altar of deficit reduction.

Then the Minister of Finance began talking about how many surpluses he had and that budget after budget after budget resulted in a surplus. That is why I say this budget introduced this year marks a profound turning point in this country. The paltry sum of money allocated to protect health care in the country in a time of surplus means that the government has decided to support or allow the beginnings of a two-tier health care system. I predict it is something that Canadians will not allow to happen.

The federal funding to the provinces was once a real partnership. Today the Minister of Health and his parliamentary secretary talked about convening a meeting of ministers to work in partnership. The federal government has lost much of its moral authority to influence the way those policies will develop because of the reduction in spending. A partnership where the federal government pays 15 cents of every dollar to health care is, what we would call in the business community, a minority shareholder position. It is not in a position to influence the real direction of where health care will go. If it is not in a position to do that then it has abandoned the leadership role that is so necessary and that should be exercised by the federal government.

The transfer payments to the provinces have been cut and cut and cut. In 1993 the cash transfers to the provinces were $18.8 billion. The explanation for that was that the government had to fight a deficit. However, it has not been restored to the previous spending levels nor will it be restored. There is also no projection for its restoration to the same level of funding, at least not as far as the government's figures show and not as far as the government can foresee.

What we know is that the federal government has relinquished its leadership role and cut its funding to the provinces by about $4 billion or $5 billion from where it was in 1993. How have Canadians reacted? From every part of the country and from every political leader in the country there has been condemnation. The British Columbia minister of finance said “I must also say that the federal finance minister falls far short of the need for funding quality health care and education which British Columbians have told me is their top spending priority”.

The president of the Manitoba Nurses Union said:

This budget didn't go nearly far enough. Ninety million dollars is enough to keep the doors open (on health care) and not much more.

It's not really sufficient. It is a one-time grant and there is no commitment for long-term federal funding, and without that I don't know how we will protect medicare.

These are not partisan statements. This is not a member of the House attacking the government for political reasons. This is someone who works in the health care system.

The minister said that he will meet with the partners in health care. Let us see what they are saying, and they are from every political stripe. From my own province of Nova Scotia, Premier John Hamm said:

—the provinces were expecting the “full meal deal” on health care.... Instead, we got crumbs.

In my province, where we face a deficit of close to $500 million, the premier said that we needed a specific amount for health care and we did not get it.

The NDP finance critic in the opposition party in Nova Scotia called the budget a betrayal of Nova Scotians and suggested that it may work in provinces where there is a robust economy but not in the have-not provinces in the country. That is where the federal leadership is falling down. That is the betrayal to the country.

The Liberal leader, a former parliamentary secretary to the minister of health, Russell MacLellan, said that the $2.5 billion transfer increase was woefully inadequate and would accentuate real problems in health care in Nova Scotia.

Premier Tobin, another Liberal, the only sitting Liberal premier left in the country, said that this was woefully inadequate.

The list goes on and on. It is not just the New Democratic Party saying that there is a problem here. This transcends political partisanship. I will be watching very carefully to see how the Liberal members of parliament, the ones from the provinces where their own provincial leaders have condemned this budget in terms of health care, vote. I am sure their constituents will also be be watching.

As the leader of the New Democratic Party said today, the motion has been particularly crafted so that every member of the House who believes in a publicly funded medicare system can show their support to Canadians for that. It calls for three things, things that the Minister of Health has said here today and has recognized need to be incorporated in health care funding. It calls for more funding. I think the Minister of Health said in his own statement that we needed more funding. He said that it needed some ideas, and we have not diminished that. There is nothing in this resolution that says we are not open to new ideas.

What it says is that there will be “a substantial and sustained increase in cash transfers” to the provinces, which the Minister of Health has said he is prepared to look at. It further states “by taking the steps necessary to prohibit private for-profit hospitals and to stop the growth of private for-profit health services in Canada”. The Minister of Health has said that he is not favour of that either.

Given the fact that this resolution does not in any way contradict what the Minister of Health says he wants to do, I will be hoping and watching to see him stand in favour of the motion when it comes to the vote.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about how the other provincial governments and leaders dealt with the budget just tabled in the House and with the inadequate amount of dollars that flowed from that budget to the health care system. Could the hon. member just expand on that a little bit more?

I am now told that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance have said in some news reports that, eureka, there may well be some more dollars available that they will put into health care if and when the health ministers sit down with them and talk about the system and how they will put those into place.

Does the hon. member have an awful lot of confidence in the co-operative federalism that has been demonstrated by the government previously and on other issues more so than health care? Does he believe that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health will negotiate in good faith? If they were, then why were those dollars not mentioned prior to the budget being formulated? All of a sudden they are backtracking a bit and saying “Of course, there is more money there if in fact we can negotiate the way that should be distributed”. Would the hon. member please like to expand on that topic just a bit?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, I do think there will be more money forthcoming to health care but not because it is in the works now. I think it is because of the reaction that the Canadian public had to this budget. I might also say that it is because of the opposition, led by this party in the House of Commons, that there is a wave beginning. The government has recognized that and is now saying “Yes, there will be more money for health care”.

However, for the provinces to do any kind of long term planning, the extra money should have been announced on the day of the budget. I honestly do not understand why a sitting government would not say that it was going to do that and that x amount of dollars would be allotted for that. If it is there, surely Canadians should know about it.

On the question of co-operative federalism, I hope that the health ministers, the premiers and the federal ministers can put aside differences to ensure that this most important program for Canadians—I think the most important program in the country—is protected and preserved. I hope those things will take place.

I do not know why it has taken so long to pull everyone together. I have only been in the House for two and a half years but in that time I think we all saw that the health care system was crumbling and that we could have done this a little more expeditiously.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to debate this motion today. I am glad to see the Minister of Health here. I think that is what ministers should do on opposition days; hear out the opposition. I hope that I will have his ear for just a few minutes and be able to pass on to him some observations of my own and those of my party with respect to what has happened to medicare over the last several years.

I begin by saying that I have been an observer of what is happening to Canada's health care system for a long time. I was the NDP health critic from 1980 to 1984 in the lead-up to the Canada Health Act. I remember very well being in the House speaking at the close of the debate on the Canada Health Act. I want to commend the health minister of that day, Monique Bégin, for bringing in the Canada Health Act, albeit after considerable encouragement on the part of the opposition, which she herself acknowledges in a book about her experiences at that time.

At the end of the debate at that time, I said—and I regret to say that it has come true—that no amount of standards, no amount of principles, no amount of ideals with respect to medicare would save medicare in the absence of adequate funding. In the end, we can have a Canada Health Act as strong as we like in terms of enforcement and in terms of its ideals, but if the publicly funded health care system in this country, that we call medicare, is slowly but surely starved to death, these principles will mean nothing.

If we cannot get the kind of health care that we want and need when we go to the publicly funded health care system this creates two problems. First, there is an immediate problem. We cannot get the health care that we need. We cannot get that diagnostic test, we cannot get the bed that we need or whatever the case may be. We cannot get the treatment that we need. But it creates a longer term problem for the system beyond the problem that it creates for an individual and that is, it builds pressure on the body politic to create an alternative to that system.

More and more Canadians, both those with money and those without very much money, begin to wonder about whether or not it would be in their interest to have another system that they could go to when the public system fails them as a result of it being slowly starved to death.

That is taken advantage of by two groups of people, the insurance companies and the multinational health care corporations that never liked medicare in the first place. The more that medicare is starved to death, the more an opportunity is created for them to make an argument for their kind of health care system.

It creates an opportunity for politicians of various right wing ideologies, like the Harris' and the Kleins, who see in the slow starvation, at least that starvation which is attributable to the federal government, a political excuse for doing what they want to anyway. It sets them up nicely as politicians who would like to create a context in which they could bring in more private funding of health care.

I say to the Minister of Health that this is a genuinely dangerous situation. We had a crisis in the late 1970s and early 1980s with respect to extra billing and user fees, and that was solved through the Canada Health Act. But we have a crisis of an entirely different order, a kind of metacrisis now.

I say to the Minister of Health, in all sincerity, that there is a real danger that medicare will be fatally wounded on the watch of the Liberal government, on the watch of the minister. I do not think that is something the minister wants to have on his record. I do not think it is something that he wants. I caution him not to let it happen by stealth, not to find out that some day he is in a position where this is going to happen whether he wants it to happen or not.

I think, unfortunately, what happened in the context of the federal budget is that the day which I do not think the Minister of Health wants, which certainly we in the NDP do not want, has been advanced. That day has been brought closer. The possibility of medicare being fatally wounded on the Liberal watch has been brought closer and made more likely. We will see today. I think it is today that Premier Klein will be bringing in legislation.

The minister may argue, and certainly Mr. Klein will argue, that this is totally in keeping with the Canada Health Act. We can get lawyers on either side of this one, but I think most Canadians would say that what Mr. Klein has in mind and what Mr. Harris is musing about is against the spirit of the Canada Health Act.

Even if it can be argued by the minister, by Mr. Klein and by Mr. Harris that this is somehow not technically a violation of the Canada Health Act because these hospitals will still be paid by the publicly insured system, it will bring these private hospitals into being. Once they are there, do we not think that they will begin to have a political presence, that they will have a presence in medical and health care communities? It will be the thin edge of wedge. It will be the wide edge of the wedge. This will be very, very significant.

I say to the minister that I think he needs to revisit the 12 point plan which a former minister signed, she says under duress, with the province of Alberta. He needs to come down hard, but he needs to come down hard with money, and not for the sake of Alberta. As far as I am concerned, Alberta is a big culprit in this. Alberta could solve all of its medical problems tomorrow by simply having a sales tax like every other province.

When it comes to Alberta, it is not a question of limited resources, it is a question of ideology. But I will tell the minister that in a lot of other provinces it is not a question of limited will or ideology, it is a question of limited resources.

The government cannot say that it cannot afford to carry 50%, while at the same time, by implication, say that it expects the provinces to carry 75% of the load. It just will not happen. It cannot be done.

Even provinces whose governments are committed, whose premiers are committed with every cell of their bodies to medicare, will not be able to do it. At some point public demand to transcend or avoid waiting lists, et cetera, will be too much and other options will have to be sought.

This is what I say to the minister. We are in a very, very dangerous situation.

The original insight behind medicare was that medical decisions would be made on medical grounds; not on market grounds, not on the grounds of profitability or seeking profit, but to take medicine out of the marketplace and make medical decisions for medical reasons.

What has happened over the last 20 years, slowly but surely, is that medical decisions are not made for medical reasons any more. They are not made according to the market, but they are made for fiscal reasons. That too goes against the spirit of medicare, because the spirit of medicare was to make medical decisions medical, not market and not fiscal.

We now have a situation where too many medical and health care decisions are being made for fiscal reasons. If we want to restore the spirit of medicare, then we have to have enough resources in the system so that doctors and other health caregivers can begin to make those decisions; not on the basis of what the finance ministers of the various provinces say or what the federal Minister of Finance says, but on the basis of what they know their patients need.

Going to a private for profit health care system will not do that either. There are health management organizations, HMOs, or whatever they are called in the United States, in which all kinds of decisions on procedures and treatments are restricted or not available because of the profit strategies of that particular health care corporation, so it is a delusion to think that is a solution. What we need is what we had, a health care system where people got what they needed because they needed it and there was adequate funding.

There is not adequate funding at this time. The $2.5 billion extra that we got the other day in the budget is not enough, and I think the health minister knows it is not enough. But it is not enough to say that it is coming. It has to come soon and it has to come in the form of re-establishing a real federal partnership with the provinces. Otherwise the minister can have all of the meetings he likes with his provincial counterparts, but if he does not have the moral high ground, if he is not willing to reclaim the moral high ground—and unfortunately money has a lot to do with that—then it will just be an endless series of seminars where our medicare system keeps getting worse and worse.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Etobicoke North Ontario

Liberal

Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the member opposite with great interest.

As I said earlier, our Minister of Finance has indicated that he is prepared to come to the table once the Minister of Health has met with his provincial colleagues and has worked up some kind of plan to make sure that the health care system will operate as efficiently as possible.

I do not stand in the House and claim to be an expert on health care, but we would all agree that health care delivery is a provincial responsibility. If there are problems in the deliver of the health care system, that is a provincial issue.

The question is: Is there a funding issue or a finance issue? That is what is under debate in the House today.

I had the opportunity in the late 1970s to work on health care cost containment. I am speaking now as a citizen of Canada. It was amazing. We looked at health care from the acute care bed, which is the most expensive part of the health care system, right through to intermediate care, long term care, home care and home makers, down to where someone needed a helping hand to make lunch. We looked at the low cost solutions and the very high cost solutions. That was 20 years ago and we still do not have it right.

We have patients in acute care beds who should be in home care. We have elderly patients in acute care beds who should be in long term care or extended care. We all know that. I know it is not an easy problem to solve. I accept that. However, we have to deal with this and other issues, like prevention, promotion and lifestyle issues, on which we have made some progress.

The member opposite said 50%. My question to him is, 50% of what? Where are health care costs going?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, the member raises a lot of things that people have talked about in the House for a long time. I would agree with them that we are facing a demographic situation as well as a number of other things which have put pressure on the health care system. Technological innovation, demographic circumstances and all kinds of things have converged to put pressure on the health care system. Nobody is denying that.

However, if we are going to work together, federally and provincially, then there has to be a commitment to equal burden sharing while we solve the problem. That is all I am saying. This is everybody's problem.

The federal government has used the federal spending power and the Canada Health Act to lay down certain conditions and to be involved in medicare, and we do not quarrel with that. If there are problems to be solved, as the member has identified, and I think identified well, then people should do that in a collegial, partnership, sharing kind of way; not by saying “There is a problem and until we solve it you guys carry 75% of the problem and when we get it solved maybe we will go back to 50:50”. I do not think that is a viable approach.

The member said that we still do not have right some of the things that were wrong 20 years ago. I would agree that there are many people in acute care beds who should be in long term care. That is a question of money. It is a question of creating those long term care facilities and beds. Or, it is a question of home care. It is probably both.

What I am concerned about when I listen to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance is that some months from now they will say to the provincial ministers of health “We want to have a national home care program. This is where we want to put our money”. The provincial governments will say “Wait a minute. Why should we trust you to cost share this thing with us when the last thing you cost shared with us you pulled out of unilaterally?” Then we could have—and this is the scenario I am afraid of—the Minister of Health saying “We wanted to have a national home care program, but the provinces would not let us. We offered to work with them, but no, they did not want to do it”, the same way it was done with the national day care program, which was pinned on the provinces. They said “We wanted to have a national day care program, but we talked to the provinces and they were not interested”. I can see the same kind of scenario developing with another national program, whereby we would get more politics and not the re-infusion of money into the system which is really needed.

As far as other matters, there are many people who go to the hospital and before they know it they are out, whereas 20 or 25 years ago they would have stayed two, three, four or five days. Let us not pretend that nothing has happened. There are many people who do not spend anywhere near the amount of time in hospital they used to. We have done all of that and we still have a problem.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Paul's.

The issue before the House is generally about health care and the condition of health care and how we address the challenges of health care today.

This morning I had the opportunity to listen to the debate and I was most impressed with the presentation of the health minister with regard to resisting getting into the trenches with others in pointing fingers at who is at fault. It was a responsible approach to saying that we have challenges, we have the opportunity and we are committed to addressing those challenges and to working in co-operation with all of the stakeholders in the health system of Canada. I congratulate him for taking the high road.

The federal government's principal responsibilities come under the Canada Health Act. I think most members will know that the Canada Health Act contains five principles. Those principles are: universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and publicly funded. If we think about the Canada Health Act, it really is expressing a value statement for Canadians.

I was told at one time that about 75% or more of the health care costs in the lifetime of a human being will be incurred in the last year of his or her life. When we consider the enormity of the costs at the end of our years, we wonder whether there would be an automatic pressure to save money by simply reducing our standards of health care, reducing our care for the aged and asking why would we spend the money to prolong death rather than spending it elsewhere to extend life. It is a significant ethical issue.

Canadians have made their choice with regard to the ethics of our health care system. We have people who are living longer and we continue to invest in our health care system to make sure that Canadians not only live longer, but they live a high quality of life throughout all of their years. Those are some of the underlying principles. It is not just about dollars. It is about the values that Canadians hold.

The National Forum on Health did two years worth of work. It had the best experts in Canada in health care delivery. It went across the country and consulted very broadly. It came to the conclusion when it reported to the health minister and to parliament that there were enough funds in the system. It said there many areas within the health care system had dollars which could have been spent much more wisely and productively in terms of getting healthier outcomes for Canadians.

I believe that was the first instance in which it was time for the federal government and the provinces to sit down to start to discuss how to plan for the health care system in the future, knowing that we have an aging society and that our lifestyles, stress and activity levels make us more at risk for having health needs. The world changes and people change but our values do not. Our values have remained firm and consistent. We want to provide quality care in terms of medically necessary services for Canadians.

A few issues were raised by the National Forum on Health on which I believe the health minister has already had consultations with the provinces. On the issue of privately funded services, I understand that over 70% of health care expenditures in Canada are financed from the public purse with the remaining coming from private sources.

Some would say the public expenditures are too high and should be restricted to a basic array of services, basic bare bones, medically necessary life threatening type activities, emergencies or obstetrics type stuff. Others say we need to maintain a high level of public funding for health and, if anything, the funding should be expanded to cover services that go beyond physicians and hospitals, which has been traditionally federal responsibility or federal obligations with regard to funding.

The National Forum on Health also raised the issue about whether there was enough money. From an international perspective it found that the Canada health care system did not appear to be underfunded and was one of the most expensive systems in the world. These are issues which have to be agreed upon with the provinces.

There was also the combination of health reform and fiscal restraint to give rise to rationing and issues around the fringes of the principles of the Canada Health Act. It is important for Canadians and legislators to look at these issues and at how Canada is evolving and responding to the health care needs of Canadians.

Canadians have made it very clear that health care is their number one priority. The Government of Canada responded in the last budget with $11.5 billion for health and a further $2.5 billion in budget 2000. That is not the end of it. That is the beginning of supporting our health care system. Very clearly a scope of discussion is necessary for the federal government and all the stakeholders, the provinces, the territories and others, to address a broad range of issues to ensure that the health care priority of Canadians is being met in a co-operative and collaborative fashion by all stakeholders.

In the remaining time I want to talk about my experience in the health care system. Before I became a member of parliament I was a member of the board of trustees of the Mississauga hospital for about nine years. During that period I acted as treasurer for some five years and one year as the vice-chair of the board. I did have an opportunity to deal with all aspects of financing of health care funding.

In my experience after nine years on the board of trustees of the Mississauga hospital I developed a sincere and deep respect for our health care professionals. Doctors and nurses in Canada have the highest standards for which we could ever ask. In a number of cases we were faced with issues where corners were being cut. Not in one instance do I remember the medical staffs or the nursing staffs saying that they would compromise the quality of their work. They would rather not do the procedures or not attempt to do the job unless they could do it to the best of their ability. The professional code of conduct of our health caregivers is absolutely irrefutable, and I want to make that known.

The whole idea of a health care crisis is possibly more show than anything, only from the standpoint that our health care system is an enormous system with many stakeholders and many aspects to it. Things do not happen very quickly in the health care system. It is a gradualist approach. It is a reflecting strategy as priorities move and things happen within our value system. We negotiate, compromise and discuss ways in which we can meet priorities.

We have had a tremendous improvement in the health care system not only in technology but also in medicine, the pharmacare side of things. Hospitals and medical procedures can now be performed in ways which were never contemplated before. The average length of stay for a patient at the Mississauga hospital actually went down from approximately 6.8 days per patient to 4.2 days. The average length of stay went down significantly. This means that bed days were saved and that money for the hospital and our health care system was saved. This had no impact on the re-admission rate. The work that was done showed that it was taking advantage of new technology.

During this period the Mississauga hospital reduced its beds from 650 to 600. At the same time it actually served more people with less beds in their catchment area by making this move, again showing the progress of our health system. Not only are the lifestyles of Canadians changing but also the technology in medicine in Canada is changing. It means that there has to be a constant dialogue.

I congratulate the Minister of Health for making a firm commitment to interim funding for health care as well as a firm commitment to deal with all stakeholders to ensure a safe and healthy system for all Canadians.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the health care system was not just about dollars, that it was about more than dollars, that it was about the value Canadians hold. This motion is about the value of our publicly funded health care system. I am sure many Canadians right across the country were looking to the budget to support that system and to give some real meaning and input into it.

I had the honour of meeting with several people in my constituency last week regarding mental health issues. There was quite a cross-section of people representing various interests including the police, young peoples associations, community mental health workers, doctors and so forth. The one common concern that came out of this meeting was the lack of resources to provide adequate health care for those suffering from mental illness.

When we refer to the values that Canadians hold, they can be of no value unless we attach value to the health care system and support it with the proper resources. What would be the hon. member's comments in this regard?

Many of our seniors have difficulty with the high cost of drugs and dental care. A gentleman asked me the other day if I could get the federal government to provide some kind of dental care program so seniors could meet the high cost of having their teeth looked after. These are small things to people, but they are all part of Canadians taking control of their lives. People feel they have lost control and that control is being put more and more into the hands of the private for profit corporations and companies. Would the hon. member comment on my remarks?

SupplyGovernment Orders

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Madam Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, there is no question that this is not a matter of dollars. We found out that the province of Ontario had $3.5 billion available and only used $800 million. We found out that Newfoundland also did not use all the money it was provided in the last budget, as well as Quebec and another $800 million. It is very clear that in those three provinces, and I suspect in others, the pressure with regard to it being not enough money is really not the point. There is a much broader question being raised and the money thing seems to be the proxy for the question.

The member raised an interesting issue, though. In a situation where home care facilities or community care is not available, hospital beds are used by people who are looking for long term care facilities. I believe that home care is a very important part of the long term solution to alleviating the pressures on existing hospital services. I for one, and I think other members will share the view, think that we have to look very carefully at home care as one of the solutions that we should discuss with the provinces.

International Women's DayStatements By Members

Liberal

Jean Augustine Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, March 8 is International Women's Day. This day provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the progress made to advance women's equality and the challenges women face worldwide. The national theme of the day “Canadian Women Taking Action to Make a Difference” builds upon the commitment of women's organizations and the Government of Canada to end poverty and violence against women.

In the spirit of the day, thousands of women in all regions of the globe will participate in the World March of Women beginning an international campaign aimed at raising awareness and mobilizing people to join in the effort to improve the lives of women.

I call upon all my colleagues in the House to participate in the march or other educational activities in their ridings and to support the Beijing platform for action currently under review. Our collective efforts can make a difference.

Gasoline PricesStatements By Members

Reform

Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, all week the finance minister has been huffing and puffing about how he has delivered Canadians from high taxes and hidden tax grabs. Curiously, though, his budget made no mention of lowering gas taxes which make up almost half the price of a litre of gasoline.

The finance minister must be too busy to explain that the current gas price crisis can partially be blamed on the fact that the government refuses to remove an excise tax that was put in place in 1981 to pay for the creation of Petro-Canada. This tax costs Canadians an extra 8 cents per litre every time they fill up.

In the 19 years this tax has been in effect the government has skimmed approximately $30.4 billion from Canadians. The original cost of Petro-Canada was $1.46 billion. That is an extra $28.9 billion that the government has quietly been pinching from Canadians over the last 19 years.

When the finance minister howls with delight over his supposed tax cuts, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if all I hear is a lot of hot air.

Agriculture MuseumStatements By Members

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, three and a half years ago a terrible fire destroyed one of the barns at the Agriculture Museum. Two great heritage buildings were lost in the fire and 57 animals perished. The only survivor was a Limousin cow named Rosanne. Today Rosanne is well and she is about to get a new home. It is my pleasure to announce that the new horse and cattle barn will open on Friday, March 3.

The Agriculture Museum is one of Ottawa's best kept secrets. It is a fully functional farm, open to the public, where everyone can learn about the importance of agriculture and experience the sights, sounds and smells of the country without leaving the city.

On behalf of Rosanne and her barn mates, I invite everyone to the grand opening of their new home tomorrow.

Sandra SchmirlerStatements By Members

Liberal

John Harvard Liberal Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are saddened today by news that Sandra Schmirler, Canada's Olympic gold curling champion, died of cancer in hospital earlier this morning at the age of 36. She had been ill since last fall when doctors found a cancerous tumour.

Few Canadians will forget the emotional news conference Ms. Schmirler held in Moncton on February 11 when she bravely said, “It's been a hell of a fight”. Well, it turned out to be a five month fight and she fought valiantly right to the end.

Ms. Schmirler brilliantly skipped her rink to Olympic gold two years ago in Japan. Her team also won three world championships. She was a great sports woman who set an example for athletes across the country. She was loved and admired by all curlers and her many, many curling fans. She will be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in extending my sincerest condolences to her husband Shannon England and their two young daughters.

Government GrantsStatements By Members

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, for a number of years I taught mathematics and finance to banking students at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

I had a very unfortunate experience when I caught three students cheating on an exam. I recommended that these students be immediately withdrawn from the program, arguing that they were people who would be handling large amounts of other people's money in their careers and their absolute trustworthiness was absolutely essential.

Now we have the top banker in Canada, the finance minister, not lifting a finger in protest over the lack of trust generated by the mishandling of billions of taxpayers' dollars. I do not know why he or the Prime Minister does not take action. Of course, it is uncomfortable to remove people from their positions, but it has to be done or the public trust will be lost.

National Farm Safety WeekStatements By Members

Liberal

Larry McCormick Liberal Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON

Mr. Speaker, next week, March 8 to 15, is National Farm Safety Week. It is a time to renew the message to Canada's farmers and their families that they can take steps to protect themselves from injury on their farms.

There is a high risk of on the job injury and death in the farming profession. Farming accidents are often a needless tragedy for families and the communities affected, creating emotional financial hardship and significant loss to farming communities of valued contributors.

This year the theme is “Use ROPS and a Seat Belt”. Accidents with tractors and self-propelled vehicles are the leading cause of death and injury to Canadian farmers. We encourage farmers to equip their tractors with a rollover protective structure and to buckle up. It is a small effort to keep a loved one safe.

The government's rural caucus is well aware of this issue. It commends the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Coalition for Agricultural Safety and Rural Health, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Farm Credit Corporation and others for their support of National Farm Safety Week.

Please farm safely. Do it for you, for your loved ones and for your community.

Railway IndustryStatements By Members

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned in the Journal de Montréal that Canadian railways are nothing more than vast open air toilets.

I would like to pay tribute to the Liberal government's leadership, management and concern for the environment in the railway sector.

Let us hope that, during the two years of reflection he has set aside to consider the future of the railway industry in Canada, the Minister of Transport will look into the lack of basic hygiene, which harks back to the dark ages.

The Liberal government's budget cuts have left VIA without the means anymore to modernize its cars and to equip them with suitable holding tanks for the toilets.

Soon, the Quebec City-Windsor corridor will look like a vast open sewer.

The result of good Liberal management is a bad smell offending a lot of people.

Federal Transfers For HealthStatements By Members

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi, QC

Mr. Speaker, while it continues to cry out for more federal health transfers, the Government of Quebec of Lucien Bouchard and his deputies Rémi Trudel and André Pelletier has done nothing with the $842 million allocated in the 1999 federal budget that was available to them anytime.

These PQ officials have let $842 million sit in the Toronto Dominion Bank, in Toronto, in the province next to Quebec. They did not even have the courage to transfer it to a caisse Desjardins or to a bank in Quebec, which might improve health care in hospitals in Abitibi—Témiscamingue and throughout Quebec.

According to the government of Lucien Bouchard, “The health care problem is not a money problem, it is a planning and management problem”.

So, Messrs. Trudel and Pelletier, why leave this money sit in the Toronto Dominion Bank in Toronto? The people of Abitibi are still waiting for you to wake up and transfer the money to Quebec.

Sandra SchmirlerStatements By Members