House of Commons Hansard #100 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was services.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled “Exporting in the Canadian Interest: Reviewing the Export Development Act”.
George Baker LiberalMinister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House important events that will be taking place in France and Canada next week, events that will mark a singular tribute to Canada's veterans of the past, to our serving men and women of today and to those who may, in the future, be called upon to defend our country and to stand on guard for peace and freedom.
Next Tuesday, it will be my privilege, in the company of representative veterans and other Canadian witnesses, to fly to Vimy, France, to receive the remains of an unidentified Canadian soldier from World War I.
Canadian veterans, military from Canada and France, diplomats, along with French government and community leaders will all witness the event. Honorary pallbearers from our wartime allies will bear the casket which our delegation from Canada will officially receive from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
The casket will contain the remains of a young soldier who made the supreme sacrifice in the area of Vimy. We do not know his name, we do not know his age, we do not know his unit but we do know that he was one of our brave Canadian soldiers.
After the ceremony at Vimy Ridge, the remains of the unknown soldier will be flown to Ottawa on the afternoon of May 25. In Ottawa there will be a procession to Parliament Hill where the unknown soldier will lie in state for three days in the Hall of Honour. The casket will be under constant vigil of serving members of the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Members of the public will be invited to pay their respects.
On May 28 the casket will be taken on a gun carriage to the National War Memorial accompanied by a military escort, Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada, the Prime Minister, members of the diplomatic corps, veterans and the RCMP. There the casket will be placed on a specially designed memorial tomb, after which a committal service will be conducted with military honours.
Soil from each province and the territories will be mixed with the soil taken from his resting place in France and placed in the tomb. After completion of the service the tomb will be sealed forever.
This will be a unique occasion of commemoration as we honour the unknown soldier. I want to express, on behalf of all members of the House, our deep appreciation for the great efforts of the Royal Canadian Legion and others who have worked so hard to bring the unknown soldier home.
Peter Goldring Reform Edmonton East, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to respond to the statement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
The events to occur next week are truly historic and long overdue. The ceremonies in Ottawa will bring together all provinces, since earth gathered from each province and the soil of France where a soldier fell so long ago, will be interred with his remains.
Next week a soldier will be carried home from the shadow of Vimy Ridge to rest forever on Canadian soil, not to the town he left so long ago, for we know not where he lived, not to his family's home, for we know not who his family is, but home he will come to rest in an honourable place and to receive the deserving respect of all as we, the public, remember the war, think of his soul and ponder the supreme “price of peace” that his death reflects.
These actions show to us that the unknown soldier represents all Canadians. In falling at Vimy, the unknown soldier fell in a crucial battle, a Canadian victory that all the world would see.
Many would say that Canada took birth that day. Born into the world of nations with respect, born by the blood of our young, born through the determination and skill. Their spirit lives on to this day.
Over 60,000 Canadian soldiers died in “the war to end all wars”. This last century, over 100,000 Canadians never returned home. More than 27,000 of our war dead, nearly 25% of all Canadians who lost their lives in fighting for our freedoms, have no marked grave having been buried at sea or on land. It is this soldier's life and his death that is of singular importance at this time. The unknown soldier is whom we speak of today. His name is known only unto God. Soon he will rest in peace on Canadian soil. Soon he will be with his family; all Canadians who will honour his past. Soon he will be home at long last.
Paul Mercier Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat familiar with the Vimy area, in France, where, next week, we will go to gather up the remains of an unknown Canadian soldier.
A few years ago, I visited this World War I battlefield. I remember walking over the plain, which now looks so peaceful with its wheat fields and small wooded areas, in a contemplative mood but also feeling the anguish that grips us when we find ourselves in a place where thousands of men died while fighting for freedom.
“Morts pour la liberté”. These people made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. It is with reluctance that I use this expression, because I am well aware that after having been used in so many speeches and read, unfortunately, on so many tombstones, it may have lost some of its meaning and may no longer fully reflect the noble yet terrible reality that it should evoke. Still, let us try to visualize what happened.
We are close to the village of Vimy. Can we see that young man, whose remains we will bring back home? Like thousands of others he is there, alive, with his helmet, his rifle and his khaki uniform in a trench, where he is taking cover, alongside his brothers in arms.
Stunned by the din of battle, which prevents him from thinking, he shoots again and again. His rifle is hot. But in the lulls between firing, he lights a cigarette and, leaning on the muddy wall of the trench, he dreams. For the hundredth time, we can be sure, he imagines the wonderful moment when the war is ended, he has travelled back across the ocean, and the train carrying him and his buddies home finally reaches its destination.
He can picture himself already, a young soldier flush with victory, searching through the cheering crowd on the platform for the anxious faces of his mother, his father, his girlfriend or his wife, and perhaps his children, older now. “Will he be there”, they must be asking themselves. There, he has seen them. “Yes, yes, I am here”, he shouts to them, leaning out the open train window.
A whistling sound, an explosion, a blast—it must have been a shell that killed him because his remains, likely mixed in with those of other soldiers, could not be identified. A shell which shattered his dream and robbed him of his identity. But today, it is this anonymity which has earned him a place in history by conferring on him the honour of forever representing in his native land, to which he has returned after more than 80 years, all those who, like him, gave their lives for us.
Next week, the coffin of this soldier will be on view in parliament's Hall of Honour so that his fellow Canadians may pay tribute to him. I hope that many men and women will do so for, were he not back among us, they might perhaps have eventually forgotten to whom they owe their freedom. They need not be great readers of literature to help make the following two lines of verse ring as true today as when they were first written:
Those who for their country gave their lives
Should hear the prayers of many at their grave
Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada in response to the minister's announcement of the significant events that will take place in France and Canada next week.
Indeed, the repatriation and interment of the remains of an unidentified Canadian solider from World War I is important to all Canadians. This unknown young man will receive posthumously the honour, respect and recognition that was so devoutly earned as he, like so many others, gave his life in service to his country and fellow man.
The ceremonies that will take place will express the appreciation of all Canadians and their allies for the ultimate sacrifice that was made by this young man and so many other men and women who fought for the peace and good order that we enjoy today.
At the same time, these ceremonies will be a stark reminder of the horrors of war, of man's inhumanity to man and the real and tragic cost involved when nations rise against nations, when greed, hatred and lust for power and domination take precedence over love, respect, sharing, kindness and a sense of fair play, equality and social justice.
As we pay our respects to this young Canadian while he lies in state in the Hall of Honour, may each of us search our hearts for what we can do individually and collectively to advance the cause for which this young man died: peace on earth and goodwill to all.
Yes, at long last we are bringing him home, but perhaps he never really left. While his body may have left home and died, I believe his spirit, like the spirits of many others who have gone on before, remains with us seeking peace and justice for all.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour one who is without a name, one who carries the names of many. Next week I will be accompanying the minister to Vimy. Next week for Canada, an unknown soldier becomes the Unknown Soldier. He will be removed from his many, many comrades at Vimy to lie in a new place of equal but solitary honour in Canada.
This man's family should escort him to his new grave for he is our father, he is our son. On behalf of his country, I am proud to be part of the mourners who will bring him to his Canadian resting place of honour.
Our men and women who died in war are all equally honoured by this act. We remember those who died in the fields of foreign nations. So too we remember those who died in the air and on the seas. Their mortal bodies were committed to earthless graves that cannot be visited.
All across this country there are monuments, memorials sacred to the remembrance of those who died in the wars fought in our name. On many of the cenotaphs is written these appropriate words from Ecclesiasticus, “their name liveth for evermore”. Today, let us also remember the words preceding this citation:
And some there be, which have no memorial...and are become as if they had never been born...But these were merciful men, whose righteousness hath not been forgotten...Their seed shall remain forever, and their glory shall not be blotted out. Their bodies are buried in peace; but their names liveth for evermore.
On this solemn occasion, we again express our sorrow and sympathy for the families of those who have died in the service of Canada. They survive with a lifelong loss and unending pain. Some will feel extra grief because their family member was killed in a manner that did not permit identification or burial. May they know serenity through this expression of the perpetual gratefulness of all Canadians for all time.
We express our gratitude to those who took up the torch, who saw injustice and tyranny and were prepared to suffer and die for their fellow Canadians. We remember those who returned from war and who still suffer the pains of physical and mental wounds. We pray that in paying homage to one unknown soldier we and future generations will remember and honour those who died for Canada.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. Q-29. .[Text]
Question No. 29—
John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC
With regard to the purchase of mefloquine from the manufacturer and the oversight of mefloquine by the Health Protection Branch as mandated by the Food and Drug Act: ( a ) did the Canadian Forces indicate to the manufacturer on the order form when ordering mefloquine for Somalia that it was for use under the Food and Drug Act's Lariam Safety Monitoring Study; when was the order submitted; and when was the shipment received; ( b ) was the Health Protection Branch informed by the manufacturer that the Canadian Forces had indicated on the order form that the mefloquine was being ordered under the authority of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and that this mefloquine was apparently purchased for the Somalia deployment; and when was the Health Protection Branch so informed; ( c ) did the Health Protection Branch receive from the manufacturer a request to fast track licensing approval for mefloquine (Lariam), and was licensing approval granted prior to the end of the Canadian Forces deployment in Somalia; ( d ) what was the date the Health Protection Branch received the final results of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study from the manufacturer, and the date of the receipt by the Health Protection Branch of the last submission of the Safety Monitoring Study's results prior to licensing approval; ( e ) did the Department of National Defence prepare an advisory note acknowledging that evidence provided to the Somalia Inquiry had mislead the Inquiry as to the status of mefloquine approvals for the mefloquine used in the Somalia deployment; was the advisory note forwarded to the Minister of National Defence; and what action was taken when the Minister was so informed?
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
I am informed by the departments of Health and National Defence as follows:
(a) The Canadian Forces did not indicate on the order forms for the mefloquine to be used on the Somalia deployment that it was for use under the Food and Drugs Act Lariam Safety Monitoring Study or on the Somalia deployment. This type of statement is also not on the initial order form that was addressed to the Ottawa Civic Hospital for the procurement of mefloquine earlier in the safety monitoring study. The order dates were September 9, 11, 14, 15 and 28, 1992 and the drugs were delivered within three working days of the order being placed.
(b) At the time of the transaction, the manufacturer was not required, nor did they inform Health Canada that the mefloquine was being ordered under the authority of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study, and that this mefloquine was apparently purchased for the Somalia deployment.
Health Canada was informed only after the allegations arose in the media in October 1994, and after investigation and consultation with the manufacturer subsequently.
(c) Health Canada
Health Canada records reveal that the manufacturer did indeed request fast tracking of the new drug submission for Lariam.
Health Canada issued a notice of compliance for Lariam on January 22, 1993. Health Canada is not privy to significant dates related to Canadian Forces activity in Somalia and is therefore unable to comment on the date of approval of Lariam—January 22, 1993, in relation to the end of the Canadian Forces deployment in Somalia.
National Defence
Health Canada's response indicates January 22, 1993, as the date of approval for Lariam. Licensing approval for Lariam was therefore granted prior to the end of the Canadian Forces deployment in Somalia.
(d) The last submission of the safety monitoring study results received by Health Canada prior to marketing approval was on July 17, 1992. The final results of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study were received from the manufacturer on July 30, 1993 and in August/September 1993, subsequent to marketing approval.
(e) An advisory note was prepared for and passed to the Minister of National Defence in October 1997 which states, with regard to the approval of mefloquine, “there was no intention to mislead the Commission”. However, this document goes on to explain, “Until very recently, it was believed that the Surgeon General Branch had informed Health Canada that mefloquine was being dispensed without the consent of individuals—even the directorate which authorized the use of mefloquine in Somalia was under this misconception”. Consequently, any information the department may have passed to the Somalia commission of inquiry related to the approval of mefloquine would have been based on the assumption that Health Canada and the drug manufacturer had been informed that the Department of National Defence was administering mefloquine outside the boundaries of the manufacturer's study.
Since the advisory note was prepared some four months after the publication of the Somalia commission of inquiry report in June 1997, no action was taken to advise the commission. However, as a result of the misunderstanding experienced with the administration of mefloquine in Somalia, the department implemented several corrective actions to improve monitoring and recording procedures relating to the use of unlicensed products. A regulatory affairs position has been established to serve as a single contact point with Health Canada regarding unlicensed products; procedures for acquisition, distribution, use and recording of unlicensed medical products have been promulgated; detailed drug and vaccine information sheets for health care providers and Canadian Forces members are being prepared; and an adverse effects monitoring and reporting database is being developed.
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario
Liberal
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. Q-28 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Is that agreed?
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. Members
Agreed. .[Text]
Question No. 28—
John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC
With regard to the recording and reporting of adverse events related to the use of the antimalarial drug mefloquine by the manufacturer, the Health Protection Branch and the Canadian Forces: ( a ) did the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff in May 1995 make a finding that mefloquine was a contributing factor in the suicide death of a Canadian soldier in Rwanda in December 1994, and did a United Nations inquiry come to a similar conclusion; ( b ) what problems with the use of mefloquine did the January 21, 1993, Canadian Forces medical services unit's post-op report of the relief phase of the Somalia mission record, and what actions were taken as a result of these findings; ( c ) what problems with the use of mefloquine did the April 1993 Canadian Forces medical services unit's post- deployment report on the Somalia mission record, and what actions were taken as a result of these findings; ( d ) what problems with the use of mefloquine did the October 1993 Canadian Forces medical services unit report “Medical Operations in Somalia, Surgical Section” record, and what actions were taken as a result of these findings; ( e ) what reporting procedures did the doctors of the Canadian Forces medical services unit in Somalia employ to ensure that soldiers exhibiting what the product monograph refers to as signs of unexplained anxiety, depression, restlessness or confusion discontinued use of the drug, as such signs were to be considered prodromal to a more serious event; ( f ) what special reporting procedures did the doctors of the Canadian Forces medical services unit in Somalia employ on the day that mefloquine was administered, normally referred to by soldiers as psycho-Tuesday or Wednesday, etc., to establish whether soldiers were exhibiting what the product monograph refers to as signs of unexplained anxiety, depression, restlessness or confusion; ( g ) did the doctors of the Canadian Forces medical services unit report to the manufacturer on a regular basis adverse events suffered by soldiers under their care who had been administered mefloquine between December 1, 1992, and December 1, 1995, and were these adverse event reports made available to the Health Protection Branch by either doctors of the Canadian Forces medical services unit or the manufacturer; ( h ) did the Health Protection Branch regularly receive from the manufacturer mefloquine (Lariam) adverse event reports; how soon after the adverse event occurred did the manufacturer normally report the event; and how many such events were reported by the manufacturer to the Health Protection Branch since 1990; ( i ) how many mefloquine related adverse events were reported to the Health Protection Branch by either doctors or their patients since 1990; ( j ) did the doctors of the Canadian Forces medical services unit have a responsibility to report to either the manufacturer or the Health Protection Branch suicide or suicide attempts by soldiers under their care who had been administered mefloquine (Lariam); ( k ) what were the findings of the August 24, 1992, “Review of the Safety Report Update for the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study” by the Infection and Immunology Division of the Health Protection Branch as regards investigators failing to return their completed case record forms to the manufacturer, and did this indicate that the safety data from the Safety Monitoring Study was incomplete; ( l ) following the August 24, 1992, “Review of the Safety Report Update for the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study” by the Infection and Immunology Division of the Health Protection Branch, what remedial steps were requested of the manufacturer so as to ensure the manufacturer required the investigators to comply with the reporting requirements of the Safety Monitoring Study; and ( m ) following the shipment of mefloquine by the manufacturer to CFB Petawawa ordered for the Somalia deployment, was the Canadian Forces medical services unit informed or reminded in any manner on any occasion by the manufacturer of the Canadian Forces' responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study as to administering the drug, recording adverse events and reporting them to the manufacturer or the Health Protection Branch and if so when?
Return tabled.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Is that agreed?
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
moved:
That this House call upon the government to act on the words of the Health Minister when he said, “we have grave reservations about investing public funds in private for-profit facilities”, by immediately amending the Canada Health Act to provide that provinces be financially penalized if they allow public funds to be used for the provision of insured services by private, for-profit hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with my dear colleague for Winnipeg North Centre.
The motion we put forward today comes as a result of what transpired here last week. After months of hand wringing, after months of promises to carefully study, after months of posturing, the health minister stood in this place and gave the green light to Ralph Klein's efforts to privatize health care in this country.
The Minister of Health said that he has a problem with Alberta's bill 11. Our motion today offers a solution. With today's motion we are offering the government a way to act on the concerns of the health minister, the concerns he himself has been forced to acknowledge again and again.
It is a way to stop Alberta's bill 11 from triggering a huge expansion of for profit health care for Canadians. It is a way to uphold the intent and promise of the Canada Health Act that all Canadians shall have equal access to health care when they need it. It is a way to do what Canadians expect of this government which is to stand up for our most cherished social program.
Let us back up a bit. Let us go over the highlights of the tragic comedy known as the federal reaction to bill 11. Since last fall the minister has voiced concerns about bill 11. The Klein government has dismissed those concerns, barely able to conceal its contempt for Canada's Minister of Health.
The minister's strategy is to buy time. First he waited to see the actual legislation. The draft the Alberta government sent him was not good enough. Then he waited to see the amendments, then the legislation in its final form, then it was the regulations. Now he wants to see specific violations of the Canada Health Act before he is prepared to do anything.
It is time for the minister to take action, and right now. All his protestations to the contrary, let us be clear about it, the minister does have an option. If he continues to claim that he cannot apply the Canada Health Act, he can change it in order to ensure that no Canadian has to make a choice between paying extra or taking the risk of getting second class treatment.
Accessibility is a fundamental principle of the Canada Health Act. The act requires that provincial governments as a condition of receiving federal transfers ensure that insured health services are provided on uniform terms and conditions. The minister knows that bill 11 compromises the principle of accessibility. He said so in a letter to his Alberta counterpart. He stated:
To permit for profit facilities to sell enhanced services, in combination with insured services, would create a circumstance that represents a serious concern in relation to the principle of accessibility.
The concern which we share is that bill 11 permits, in fact encourages and facilitates, queue jumping and two tier health care. All the pious statements by Mr. Klein aside, that is the main goal of bill 11. Patients in private for profit hospitals will be offered uninsured, or enhanced services so-called, for which they will be required to pay extra and if they refuse they will undoubtedly face second class treatment.
Let us forget about the technical and legal arguments. Let us think about Canadians who are put in that position, Canadians who are vulnerable, scared and sometimes desperate, often suffering severe pain, Canadians who have always trusted their doctors but in that position are not so sure. With bill 11 American health corporations put doctors in the position of having one hand on the scalpel and one hand on the cash register. Canadians who cannot pay will be forced to settle for inferior service.
The minister hoped to make bill 11 magically disappear by beefing up monitoring. However, this move described quite rightly by the auditor general many months ago, does not solve the root problem because these staff cannot be in an operating room or in the doctor's office when a patient is asked whether she wants to pay a little extra or settle for the minimum level of service. They cannot see inside the doctor's head when she schedules a procedure or books an appointment for us with a specialist.
The minister himself said in his letter that the threat to accessibility is the circumstance created by bill 11, namely allowing for profit hospitals to sell uninsured services while also providing publicly funded insured services. That is why it is a shameful evasion to now say that the Minister of Health must wait for specific documented violations before moving to enforce the Canada Health Act. He is hiding behind a legal ambiguity in the act to avoid doing anything whatsoever.
Our motion removes that ambiguity. It clarifies how the principle of accessibility must be upheld in a world in which commercial health corporations aided by their political cronies are trying to dismantle our public health system. It ensures that all Canadians are treated equally in hospitals receiving public health care dollars.
Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question for the leader of the NDP has to do with the province of British Columbia.
The Government of B.C., which is an NDP government I might add, recently allowed a hospital in my riding, Lions Gate Hospital, to experiment with the contracting out of services to the private sector. The two areas of treatment covered by the experiment are eye surgery and simple surgical procedures. As a result of the contracting out of these services to the private sector, the waiting list for eye surgery has dropped by 60% and the waiting list for simple surgical procedures has dropped by 20%.
Will the leader of the NDP recognize the success of this private sector involvement in the health care sector or will she continue to oppose these new approaches which have alleviated the suffering of dozens of my constituents? Would she rather condemn her followers to long waiting lists and inadequate procedures?
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, let me say first, as I have said on many occasions and said again this morning, we are absolutely in favour of innovation to improve the public health care system.
However we stand against what bill 11 is all about. Bill 11 clearly intends to create a two tier health care system where those who can pay extra money can jump the queue and get preferred services and those who do not have that private wealth and deep pockets are not in a position to do so. That is why bill 11 is so lethal. It threatens the very heart of universality and the concept that people shall be eligible for equal treatment regardless of where they live or what their financial circumstances are.
That is a fundamental difference between those provinces. Let me say that the NDP provinces have backfilled, infilled dollar for dollar, the huge sum of money taken out of the public health care system by the federal government. Also the NDP provinces are standing up and fighting against this very serious threat to the total health and universality of access to services in the public not for profit health care system.
Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the leader of the NDP did not answer my question. Does she approve of the type of private sector contracting out which is being experimented with by the NDP government in British Columbia, or would she rather condemn her followers to lengthy waiting lists and inadequate procedures?
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad thing, which is exactly why Canadians are so alarmed, that members of the official opposition talk not at all about the need for innovation in health care. They talk not at all about the threat of bill 11 not just to universal not for profit health care in Alberta but to universal not for profit public health care across the country.
When they finally get up out of their seats and start to raise issues about health care, it is after Canadians have noted that they have completely abandoned their responsibility as the official opposition to stand up for a public not for profit universal health care system. They have it in their heads that there is some either/or here.
We absolutely want to see innovation. We need innovation in the health care system. At the very least we need the government to deliver on its commitment to home care and to a pharmacare program, but it cannot be at the expense of the universal provision of health care to those who need it. That is what the official opposition party does not seem willing either to accept or take any leadership on.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, I know the Canadian Alliance finished with 4% in Newfoundland slightly ahead of the extreme wrestling party. That tells how much credibility it has on health care.
I noticed yesterday the Minister of Finance announced that the surplus for 1999-2000 was $11 billion higher than projected in February. Would the leader agree with me that this money should be spent on health care, on the CBC and on other social programs that are a necessity for the future development of our country?
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Regina has said it all. If Canadians depended upon leadership from the Reform Party, in whatever its newest incarnation, then we would now have already Americanized our health care system in exactly the way that actually some of the candidates for the leadership of its renamed party have been advocating.
I do not think there is any problem with the agreement with my colleagues in my caucus on the issue. Neither is there any problem with Canadians understanding the transparency and the hypocrisy of the official opposition position.