Debates of May 18th, 2000

Supply

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is seldom that I agree with my colleague but on that question I agree with her totally.

The government has cut $25 billion out of health care in the country. The member opposite said, “We need to restructure the health care system”. He said the MPPs in Ontario do not care. That is nonsense. They do care. What they care about is that the federal government has taken out $25 billion from the provincial system.

Why does the member think he has to solve the health care problem? Health care is a provincial jurisdiction. Many members in the House have been in provincial governments. They know how difficult it has been to operate a proper health system with the federal government taking out $25 billion.

When will the money be put back in? Give them the money and let the provinces run the system. They can do it very well if they get their share of the funding.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of a collapsing health care system occurred while there was that $25 billion. By the way, the statistics are quite clear. With the transfer payments we have restored all the money that we were funding in health care back in 1993-94. Does the member want to ignore reality and forget about tax points?

That is just not reality. The money is back in the system today. My province has something like $300 million from the federal government in one time start up funding that was not even spent on health care. So do not tell me that the provinces know how to spend money on health care. The fact is that health care across the country is in collapse and the provinces are responsible.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment and a question.

The member across the way said that the Liberals had the money in their back pocket. Could they take it out and put it on the table? That would be really good for Canadians.

I want to be sure so I will repeat it in English. My colleague across the way said that the Liberals had the money in their back pockets. Canadians wish they would take it out of their back pockets and put it on the table where it needs to be to serve Canadians. That is what we need for health care. It is not right that people cannot get into hospitals because of a six month wait for heart surgery and every other sickness. They just cannot get the service. That is the fault of the federal government and all the cuts it has made to health care.

Even the Liberal from Newfoundland, Brian Tobin, said the same thing. Maybe they should talk to their cousins down there, too.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I talk to our health care workers, people such as nurses who actually work in the system. They have told me that more money is not the answer. If we pump more money into the system, it is going to be just as inefficient as it is today.

The only way the federal government can show leadership on this file is to say that these are the ways the health care system should change across the country from sea to sea to sea. Yes, we will put some more money on the table, but we want to see commitment from the provinces that they are going to spend it on improving health care for people.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Durham said that some of the provinces that were given money by the federal government kept that money. With his accounting background, he would recognize that the money transferred to the provinces was for three years.

If he were in the province and received $100 million for health care, would he have spent that $100 million in the first week, or would he have spread it out over three years, which is what the provinces are doing?

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, by all means, no I would not. But I would not be like the province of Ontario which is saying that it does not have any money when in fact it has $300 million sitting in an account. It turned around and took $160 million out and did not spend it on health care. It spent it on tax cuts. That is not my idea of leadership on the health care file.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the opposition motion by the NDP.

As the minister has said, the government does have grave concerns about public funds going to private for profit facilities. In Canada our health care system is predominantly publicly financed and privately delivered. It is publicly financed in that our universal single payer health care system accounts for about 70% of total health care expenditures in Canada. It is privately delivered in that most health care providers and facilities operate in a private not for profit manner.

The system has always had private components. For example, most of our doctors are private practitioners or entrepreneurs, if you like. Most Canadian hospitals are operated as private non-profit entities.

In addition to the publicly insured physician and hospital services we all receive, provinces and territories also provide public coverage for other health services that remain outside the national health insurance framework for certain groups of the population, such as seniors, children and welfare recipients. These supplementary health benefits include prescription drugs, dental care and vision care. While provinces and territories do provide coverage for some of these additional benefits, for the most part they are privately financed. These health care benefits account for about 30% of Canadians' total health expenditures and are financed privately through supplementary insurance, employer sponsored benefits or directly out of pocket.

As Canadians know and appreciate, the values that underpin our medical care system are synonymous with being Canadian. The fact that people in this country have access to hospital and physician services based on their need and not their financial means is truly a unifying feature of Canadian life. Our publicly financed health system is a social contract between governments and citizens to take care of one another regardless of financial means or economic position.

One has only to talk to Canadians born before medicare and listen to the stories of families who lost their life savings, of individuals who could only have surgery when the community got together and raised funds, or of loved ones who suffered because they could not afford health services, to know how important medicare is to being Canadian. This alone is a strong argument for a one tier, single payer health care system and, more important, for all of us to be working to keep it together.

The real threat to medicare is the increasing involvement of the private sector in the delivery of necessary health care services on a for profit basis. This raises concerns about the integrity of our public system and whether a two tiered system is not far in the future.

This is worrisome, especially since our system is envied by many other countries. Globally, Canada's health system is seen as not only a core social value, but also a program that enhances our competitive position in the world economy.

Let us look at overall health spending. Canada spends about 9.2% of its gross domestic product, the GDP, on health. The United States spends 14% of its GDP on health, and still 43 million Americans do not have health insurance coverage. Another 100 million are under-insured.

How can we spend 9% of the GDP and still cover everyone? The big difference is the cost of administration. The American multi-payer system simply costs more.

Look at payroll costs in Canada and the United States. In the U.S. they are six times higher. Medicare is one of the reasons Canada has the lowest payroll taxes of any country in the G-7. Canada's business leaders recognize that medicare is a key economic asset, not a burden. Our single payer, publicly financed health system makes Canadian businesses more competitive by keeping their costs down.

As John McCallum, chief economist at the Royal Bank of Canada, said recently with regard to health care in Canada “The goals of efficiency and financial egalitarianism go hand in hand”.

While Canada is the country best equipped to deal with the pressures of an aging population and increased health costs, there are still challenges and problems.

The Minister of Health and the Prime Minister have both said and emphasize that the status quo is not on. However, the way to solve these problems is not to replace the status quo with a private, parallel, for profit system. Innovation and change do not necessitate private for profit health care delivery, but sometimes provide an excuse for that very fact. Yet ironically we hear time and time again that the answer is to turn to private for profit systems for health care delivery when in fact from an economic standpoint there is little evidence to support this conclusion.

Numerous studies from countries where there is private for profit health care demonstrate that when compared to publicly provided health care it costs more, provides lower quality and fewer services, reduces equity and accessibility and drives up the cost of public service.

A parallel for profit system would draw the best and brightest doctors and other health providers also from the public system, leaving the rest of us in the public system with diminished services. However, if procedures in the private system get complicated and more elaborate service is required, we know where those cases will be, right back in the public system.

The public system ends up subsidizing the private one by having to provide services that will not turn a profit in the private system. In short, Canadians would be worse off than if the services were delivered publicly. From my perspective Canadians will be better served when changes, innovations and capacity issues are addressed within a publicly financed and publicly provided health care system.

An important decision about changes to medicare should be guided by sound, solid evidence, by governments working together to address Canadians' needs. Instead of privatization we need to be working together to better organize and manage the current public health system.

It is quite clear that the Government of Canada has a long term sustainable plan to modernize, strengthen and preserve public health care in Canada. Canadians expect their governments to work together to ensure the renewal of this most cherished social program. The government stands ready to engage in this most important challenge. It is not beyond us to solve the problems that confront medicare, but we must get on with the job.

The Canada Health Act is flexible enough as it stands now to protect public health care. The Minister of Health has stated that, as we have in the past, we will enforce the Canada Health Act in the future if violations occur. This government will enforce the authority in the Canada Health Act if practices threaten the five principles on which our health care system is based.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Liberal member seems concerned about the fear of privatization. She talked a lot about a two tier system. Does she not think that we not only have a two tier but probably a three tier system in Canada already? We have our system that is not working well. We have a system of a number of procedures growing in just about every province that is not covered by medicare any more, so that only people who can afford certain procedures have them. Then we have about $5 billion a year going out of the country to the United States and to other parts of the world because Canadians leave to have operations they cannot get quickly enough in Canada. Do we really not have a three tier system already?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a gross misrepresentation of the facts that I stated and of comments that were made earlier in the House.

The government is firmly committed to enforcing the Canada Health Act and providing Canadians with access to great medical care in the country. We have no intention of standing back and allowing anything to deteriorate the system.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I recognize that she was speaking as if there were a real commitment on behalf of the government to support a public health care system and that there was no way it would allow for profit medicare or health care within our system. However, the reality is that there has been a decrease in funding.

The government is not funding health care to the degree it was a number of years ago. There is not the 50:50 sharing with the provinces. It is not happening. That is not accurate. The government is not doing it. As a result, the provinces make the choice as to whether they want to go ahead and start charging for this or not covering that, instead of having a system where over time we improve it and where we continually benefit Canadians with increased services that are covered.

I want to comment on the point of what Canadians want to see. Canadians have made it perfectly clear a number of times when governments of the past have gone to them and asked what they wanted to see in health care. They have already told the governments. Where have the governments been? Why have they not been listening?

Canadians have said that they want a universal health care system. They want a national pharmacare program. They want national home care standards. If people have never heard that they should get their ears to an ENT and get them cleaned out. That is what Canadians have said loud and clear. They have said that they want a national system. They want national standards. They want to be able to move from one province to the other and get those services. That is not possible.

How can my hon. colleague stand behind her statement of what the government believes in if it is not willing to put an equal share of dollars on the table for the provinces?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything the member has said in the sense that we are all here as Canadians. This is an issue of major importance to each and every one of us in the House. It does not matter what party we are with, we all want to make sure that we have the best health care system.

The commitment from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance is that there will be additional dollars on the table. This is not a pot that we can keep putting dollars into. We have an aging population and a lot seniors in need. We need to make some changes in the system. We can raise all the concerns about home care we want, but we need to work with the provinces. We cannot just keep writing the cheques. Funding, as I understand, is back up to the 1993-94 levels. More money has been committed in the health area, but there have to be changes.

The province of Ontario is sitting with money in the bank while people are desperately in need of care. That is a real problem. Giving the province of Ontario more money is not the answer. The question is, what are the changes and how are we going to make sure that we have a sustainable health care system for all? There is no issue that will unite Canadians, politicians and all governments to make sure that happens more than this one.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member's remarks compared to some of the comments I heard this morning about throwing more cash at the problem.

The hon. member mentioned in her speech that changes are needed concerning innovative and capacity issues. Could she expand on that?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we only provide the money. We have to be able to co-operate and work with the provinces to ensure that they make the changes necessary to preserve our health care system so that we will have an effective pharmacare program and a home care program that will look after the people, which we are all very committed to seeing happen.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate on this motion on health care. At the outset, let me say that the motion is characteristic of NDP policy on many things. Regrettably for them, times are changing and we must move with the times. This is no more so than in health care. The situation is code blue. It is critical.

In reality, the NDP is no closer to supporting provincial innovations in health care than are the Liberals. They do not like what Mr. Klein is doing, but they will not comment on what they are doing in British Columbia, which is very similar to what they are doing in Ontario. They are not willing to demonstrate flexibility in reforming the health care system. Until someone is, the situation will continue to deteriorate and the lives of Canadians will remain pawns in this game of lethargy by both the Liberals and the NDP.

For the NDP it is easier to point fingers and lay blame. They, like the Liberals, are applying the Canada Health Act as a hammer to penalize the provinces, which are in dire straits because of lack of funds and increasing pressures on the system.

I listened to the hon. member for Malpeque say that we just cannot throw money at a system. Why does he not stop to think? This money belongs to Canadians. This is not the Liberal government's money. The provinces deserve that money. Medicare is supposed to be a 50:50 proposition. It is not any more. It is funded 11% to 14% by the federal government. Money would make a difference.

Why do we not let the provinces do what our constitution says they should be doing, which is running the health care system? The Liberals use this big “We are going to do this for the health care system”. Stay out of the health care system and let the provinces run it.

When I was in the provincial government in British Columbia we had an emergency room system which operated very well. We had a $10 user fee. It was not mandatory. At the bottom of the form which people signed it stated that if they did not have the money or if they did not want to pay, they did not have to. It was a voluntary $10 fee. We were forced by the Liberal government to stop taking that $10. The costs in the emergency rooms went up by 145% the next year. There was no need for it. That was big brother managing a province that was doing quite fine operating its own system with a user fee that did not bother anybody in the emergency rooms, but the government said it would take away our highway grant of $90 million for that year if we did not stop collecting that $45 million worth of user fees in the emergency rooms. That was big brother operating. It has not improved the health care system in British Columbia. Perhaps it makes some people feel better.

The interesting part is that in all the years I was in the B.C. government we collected 98.5% of those $10 fees. Nobody refused to pay. Nobody minded paying. The usage rate in the emergency rooms went up the next year by a tremendous amount. Now people use it as a drop-in centre when they cannot get in to see their doctor.

The system was operating fine in the province until the interference of this government.

Let us be realistic and look at the government's track record on health care spending. The government has cut $25 billion out of the Canada health and social transfer over the past seven years. It will be cutting another $10 billion over the next four years. What does the government expect the provinces to do? They cannot provide the required services now and the government wants them to cut more. How can we expect that services are going to get better? They are going to get worse.

Let us take a look at the impact of the decrease in federal health care spending. Can hon. members imagine being told they have a cancerous tumour and have to wait three months for treatment? That is happening in this country. People are being told that it takes three months. Is it not bad enough that the doctor says that word, which shakes everyone from head to toe, without having to wait for x-rays?

As Canadians we can brag about our health care system, and so we should, but why are we spending $5 billion to cross the border into the U.S. to have MRIs and hip replacements? Because we cannot get it done here.

We have to solve this problem. The Liberal government is doing nothing to help solve that problem. The costs of people going across the border for treatment are increasing every year because of the lack of facilities in Canada. We have forgotten about technology in Canada. We have developed some of the best technology for medicine in the world, which the Americans are using, and we are paying to use it in the U.S. because the Liberal government has cut funding from the provinces.

There is one major failing in our health care system, and it is catching up on us. Canada has not kept up with technological innovations. Among the OECD countries, Canada is rated 23 out of 29 with respect to health care. In other words we are in the bottom one-third of the industrialized countries. We can sit here and brag all we want about our system but we are in the bottom third of the OECD.

Technology is the key to propelling our health care system and we have it in the country. I had a call the other day from one of my constituents. His grandmother has a hip which is not working. She can no longer walk and get to her car. She has been told there is an 18 month wait. She has to suffer for 18 months. What is the family doing? They are all chipping in a few dollars so she can go across the border to the Mayo Clinic and get her hip replaced. Are they not lucky that they all have a bit of money to help get their grandmother across the border?

Why should she have to wait? She spent 84 years paying her taxes, being a great Canadian, and now we have to ship her off to an American hospital for a hip replacement. How many people in the House have mothers and grandmothers with failing eyes who are waiting months and months and months to get into a hospital? It is awfully nice of my friends from Malpeque and elsewhere on the other side to say that money is not the problem, that it is the way the provinces are managing the system. That is not the problem. The provinces do not have the money to manage the system properly.

Why do we not sit down and negotiate that? Instead of giving great speeches about how we are here to protect the five principles of the health care act, why does the Minister of Health not talk in realistic terms? It should be a public hearing. We should let the public come to listen to the provincial health ministers and the federal minister debate the issue. Then they could get it out in front instead of the nonsense that is taking place.

The country is being divided over the health care issue. Provinces are trying to do their best, whether it is British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, or any other one, but they are getting very little co-operation from the federal minister.

We have an aging population. There will be greater demands, not less, on our system of health care delivery. That will happen year after year after year. Currently one in ten Canadians is over 65. By the year 2025 it will be one in five, in just another quarter of a century. Mr. Speaker, you and I will be in that age bracket 25 years from now. We will be one in five instead of one in ten. It will be tougher and harder to get our hips replaced and to get our eyes fixed if the program does not improve.

Another very scary statistic is that the average age of a specialist in Canada right now is 59. With program and training cutbacks and so forth, foreign countries are seducing students with lower tuitions, better tax environments and better training tools. We will be losing more doctors and thus more specialists. While this is happening the Prime Minister is saying that there is no brain drain.

The average age of specialists is 59. They are not staying here. I know in my riding, which includes Whistler, the number one ski resort in the world, the odd person falls down. In fact the minister of fisheries is still using a cane these days because of a little accident on a ski hill. We used to have four of the best bone doctors at the Lions Gate Hospital. There are two left and one is leaving. In Vancouver right now it takes months and months to see one of those specialists after that kind of an accident. It is a serious problem and the government is not looking at it.

In 1974, with a population of 22 million, some 2,640 new doctors entered the system. In 1997, with a population of 30 million, only 1,882 new doctors entered the system. We cannot afford to lose any of these doctors to other countries, let alone the specialists.

In some cases Canadians are currently waiting for up to nine months to see a specialist. We are in a critical situation and the government says that it cannot throw money at it, that it has to look at the system, that we have a better system than the Americans and that we cannot have two tiers.

As I mentioned earlier, we have a three tier system right now. Every member of the House knows that. We have a system where we have to make an appointment to visit a doctor. If we need to see a specialist we have to wait one, three, six or nine months.

Also every province has increased the number of services not covered under medicare. Every time I have been to my doctor's office there is a new list on the wall of items no longer covered under medicare. Who pays for those procedures? We pay for them out of our pockets. They are not being covered by medicare. That is a two tier system.

What about the constituent who is going down to the states for a hip replacement? That is the third tier: $5 billion going out of the country every year. It should be staying here. That is what Ralph Klein is trying to do and it is going to work very well. These people will rue the day they tried to call this a two tier system. They already have a three tier system because they have let the medicare system go to pot. They try to defend it by saying it is anti-American, which is typical Liberal-NDP action. Anytime there is a problem they say it is anti-American. That covers it up for all Canadians who think they are doing a good job.

Millions of Canadians of all political persuasion know that the system is broken. It is not Ralph Klein's fault. It is not the fault of the premier of British Columbia or of the premier of Ontario. It is the fault of the federal government which has knocked $25 billion out of medicare.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the member's speech. He mentioned a lot of things that have merit. While he described some of the chronic problems of the health care system, he has taken all the examples, turned them around and shifted them solely on to the shoulders of the federal government.

I criticized some of my other colleagues who want to get this done on the basis of money because I do not think it is about money, but the hon. member seems to think that the sole purpose of the federal government is to dole out money. I should like to have the member's opinion.

In approximately 20 minutes some of his colleagues in the front row will jump up to cross-examine the government. They will say taxes have to be reduced, that expenses have to be cut and so forth. Yet the member says that we should be spending significantly more money on health care. I think some more funding is in the cards.

Having said that and looking at the reality in terms of spending on health care, 10% of our gross domestic product is spent on health care. In all seriousness, if they criticize the federal government for not spending enough money, what is the percentage of our gross domestic product that Canada should spend on health care? We are already one of the highest spenders in the world. I want the member to be honest and tell me if the issue is about spending or the administration of the spending.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that my constituent who wants a hip replacement is listening to the debate. I hope there are thousands of others across the country who are listening. They do not give a damn about the gross national product or what percentage it is because they do not understand it. All they know is that our health system is broken. If it takes 11%, 12% or 13% to make it work, let us make it work.

We say we have the best health care system in the world. Let us make sure it is the best. With all due respect I say to the member that there is an administration problem. There are more bureaucrats in our health ministry than we need. The provinces should be running health care. We do not need a big federal bureaucracy spending millions of dollars. We need to get Mrs. Smith's hip fixed. We need to get Mr. Smith's eyes fixed. We need to make sure there are no long six to nine month waits to cure our health problems. That is what the issue is all about. It is not about percentage. It is not about spending more here or less there.

The member is right. In a few minutes we will be up during question period asking lots of questions about the waste of $1 billion in HRDC. That money should be put into health care. We will be asking about files. How much did it cost to keep 39 million HRDC files on every Canadian? Why do we need them? Each of those files must have cost a few hundred bucks. There are tens of millions of dollars there that could be put into health care instead of having a secret file on how many times Canadians went to hospital.

I do not want a file in any government department indicating how many times I had to go to a hospital in a year. Do I smoke cigarettes or do I not? Did I not wear my seatbelt and get a ticket for it? The RCMP could show the file to an insurance company that will increase my insurance. I want my health care fixed.

The Canadian Alliance Party, the NDP and the Bloc will give Liberal members a list of the wasted money in the federal system that could be going toward better projects than what it is going to right now. The Tories will not participate because they are part of the problem.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it rather strange but it sounded good that the NDP would be able to give the answers to the health care problems. We certainly can give the answers.

We never have suggested that money is the only issue. We never have suggested that there is an unending pocket of money to be used for health care. We have said that Canadians want dollars put into health care. If there is a surplus of $11.9 billion or $14 billion within the federal government, it is not because the Liberals did some good money management as compared to everything else they did. It means that they cut $25 billion out of health care, took away services, continued to take Canadian taxpayer money and never provided the services. I want to get the member's comments on that.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not hear the end of the question. All I can say is that when I left the Government of British Columbia in 1991, because we were replaced by the NDP, our deficit was slightly under $1 billion and our health care system was working very well. The deterioration started when the federal government took money away from us for emergency rooms. It took $45 million out of the system.

I agree with my NDP friend. They have not just asked for money. They have asked for a curing of the system. We all agree with but it takes money to do it. There is a lot of waste in other government departments that we could use and should be priorized. There are a lot of government departments. We do not need the minister of fisheries. Fisheries is a provincial jurisdiction. We should get rid of him and his department and put that money into health care.

There is a lot federal issues on which we could reduce money so that average Canadians could get the health care they deserve.

Message From The Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed a bill to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

International Museum Day

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is International Museum Day. The theme for this year's celebration is “Museums for peace and harmony in society”.

Canada's heritage is one of our most important assets. It tells us who we are, where we came from and what influences shaped our development as a nation. It ties together generation upon generation. This rich and multifaceted heritages is preserved in our museums and galleries across the country.

International Museum Day highlights the important role that this institution plays in our society. It is not only a source of entertainment. It is also a vital means of cultural exchange, enrichment of cultures and development of mutual understanding, co-operation and peace among people.

Today museums across Canada will be opening their doors. I encourage all members and all Canadians to see an exhibit, take a guided tour and experience the wonders that our museums have to offer.

Taxation

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian students must claim scholarships as income. A Canadian student lucky enough to receive a large scholarship is actually unlucky because he must pay tax to Revenue Canada on the value of the scholarship as if it were income.

Scholarships to American universities are often large because the tuition rates are high. Canadian students are being forced to pay income tax on money they never see because much of it is earmarked for tuition. This situation turns to farce when the student spends his whole summer working just to pay taxes. On the other hand, American students receive the tuition portion of their scholarship tax free.

This draconian tax policy is unfair to Canadian students, encourages the brain drain and penalizes bright students who are awarded the larger scholarships. This needs to be fixed.

Medicalert Month

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of informing the House and all of the Canadian public that the month of May has been designated MedicAlert Month by the MedicAlert Foundation.

More than 900,000 Canadians are protected by this service, recognized world-wide, which provides identification and medical information in an emergency.

It is estimated that one Canadian in five has a medical problem or allergy about which medical personnel should be informed in an emergency.

MedicAlert allows individuals at risk to be identified quickly in a medical emergency, and gives medical service providers immediate access to reliable personal and medical information.

During MedicAlert month, the Canadian MedicAlert Foundation will be launching a special campaign to increase public awareness of its services.

Let us all express to the Canadian MedicAlert Foundation our best wishes for the unqualified success of its campaign.

St. Mary's Children's Choir

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is once again my pleasure to rise in the House to sing praise to the Presto Group of the St. Mary's Children's Choir who recently captured first place at the 13th annual CBC national competition for amateur choirs.

Carried live over the radio on CBC Radio 2, and under the tutelage of the choir director Eileen Baldwin, the St. Mary's Presto Choir group performed three brand new, unaccompanied pieces to beat Edmonton's Scholata Cantorum Chamber Choir to claim the national title.

In winning the title, the St. Mary's choir received $3,000 in prize money which will be used to fund their upcoming tour to Vancouver where they will be participating in the World of Children's Choirs featuring 40 of the best children's choirs from around the world.

This latest achievement is just another feather in the cap of the St. Mary's Choir, having won numerous awards at provincial and national level competitions over the years.

Let me finish by saying, bravo.

Gabe Kraljevic And Doug McPherson

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize two constituents whose dedication and commitment have earned them the respect of their colleagues and students and now of the Prime Minister and the country.

I am referring to Gabe Kraljevic and Doug McPherson who received Prime Minister's awards for teaching excellence.

Mr. Kraljevic teaches computer technology at West Kildonan Collegiate. His approach of balancing technology training by integrating language, communication, creativity and teamwork skills has ensured that his students develop the skills necessary for success in the information age.

Mr. McPherson teaches electronic technology at John W. Gunn School. His philosophy of start small, integrate subjects and provide differentiated learning opportunities has led at least one parent to say “My daughter's academic progress in your program has been exceptional—because you have designed a middle years program that is unparalleled”.

On behalf of the House of Commons, I extend congratulations to these two teachers.

Hyack Festival

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the royal city of New Westminster, British Columbia, is again proud to sponsor its annual Hyack Festival in the month of May.

This year marks the 130th May Day, making it the longest running celebration of its particular kind in the British Commonwealth. In the past, dignitaries like Queen Elizabeth have joined the festivities, witnessing firsthand the traditional cannon blast salutes in memory of Queen Victoria.

With children dancing around the historic maypoles, a parade with fancy floats and many marching bands, it is no wonder that people from all over North America come to take part in such a wonderful historic festival.

While Victoria may be British Columbia's capital, New Westminster remains the original royal city, given its name by the Queen. The word hyack comes from an Indian word for hurry up.

I urge my parliamentary colleagues to come to New Westminster next week and learn more about hurrying up because this is exactly what Canadians want. Congratulations to the Hyack Festival organization of New Westminster.