Debates of Oct. 30th, 2002

Health Care System

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on the take note debate on health care.

Last week was the ninth anniversary of my being elected and the election of the government across the way. One would think after nine years that we would have solved some of the problems instead of just having another take note debate. We have been taking note of health care for nine years and it is time to do something about it.

Within a month the Romanow commission will table its report. From the comments that have been made publicly by Mr. Romanow, it would appear that his major recommendation is that the health care system is fine, that it just needs a few more dollars and we just need to tinker with it.

I would argue that more money is not necessarily the answer. Day in and day out the Minister of Health gets up and brags about how much money, the billions of dollars, the government has put back into health care. It is convenient the government does not mention that it took out billions of dollars a few years ago. Even at that, after putting in all these billions of dollars, there are still problems with our health care system.

I would argue that the problem is that most of the new money which has gone into health care has paid for the increases in salaries for those who are employed in the health care industry. Seventy per cent of all health care dollars go to salaries.

British Columbia had to raise the sales tax half a per cent just to cover the doctors' pay increase. Doctors strikes from B.C. to Newfoundland and Labrador, nurses strikes, hospital workers strikes, more money into the system but the same waiting lists and the same problems remain. Somehow more money does not seem to be answering the problem.

Last week the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology tabled its volume 6 report on health care. There was an extensive list of recommendations, but the one that received the most media attention was its recommendation that $5 billion more from the federal government go into health care spending.

The Senate committee proposed different ways of raising this money. One of the ways was to increase the GST by 1.5%. I assume that most members seem to have difficulty with this. I know the public does. Canadians do not feel this is the answer because most of them remember when the Liberal government said that it would get rid of the GST, but who knows.

If this were to be imposed, it would mean that in British Columbia for each $100 a person spent, they would be paying an additional $2 in taxes just for health care.

One of the other suggestions was that the federal government should institute health care premiums. Again, in British Columbia this is nothing new. We already pay health care premiums. We are only one of two provinces that do.

The Senate committee recommended that there be a sliding scale of premiums dependent upon income. If this plan were to be adopted, it would mean that the average two income family of three or more in British Columbia would be paying more than $2,000 a year in medical premiums.

Despite the notion that every Canadian is entitled to health care regardless of the ability to pay, this is not always the case.

A couple of years ago I raised the issue of a constituent of mine, Tim Jeffries, who severely broke is ankle. He went into surgery to have something done and he was asked if his health care premiums were paid up which they were not. It was not until his mother paid his back health care premiums that he was taken into surgery. He was actually removed from the surgery room until his mother paid his back premiums.

It was noted that in the fall of 2000 an estimated 200,000 British Columbians were not covered by health care. Five per cent of the population had no health care coverage because of their inability to pay the premiums.

If the government were to adopt the Senate recommendation, it would mean that B.C. families would pay twice as much. It would be interesting to know in our province alone how many people would not be covered and certainly across the country how many people would not be covered by health care premiums.

The Senate report also recommended that new programs be added, such as home care for post-operative and palliative care patients and that these programs be funded fifty-fifty by the province and by the federal government.

One can accept the fact that people and particularly the provinces would be very skeptical about that. In B.C. the provincial government already pays over $10 billion or 41% of its provincial budget on health care.

The province increased its health care budget by $1.1 billion last year alone. If the federal government were to implement this, it would mean an extra $5 billion, but for B.C. it would mean only $650 million. That would be a help, but it is certainly only a small portion of its budget. To get this small portion of its budget, B.C. would have to agree to spend it the way the federal government wanted it to be spent.

The provinces are very suspicious about any federal government commitment of fifty-fifty. In the 1960s a Liberal federal government made a commitment to the provinces that it would share the cost of health care fifty-fifty. Right now the Liberal government is only funding 14%. This is a far cry from fifty-fifty.

Federal fuel taxes were brought in and they were supposed to go into highways and other transportation projects. Yet only 3% of these taxes go back on transportation.

What about the federal government promise back in World War I that income tax would only be a temporary war measure?

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but we have had a consultation among House leaders. Unfortunately, a bill was introduced earlier this day and we had committed to give a briefing to all members of Parliament prior to its introduction.

After the consultation I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:

That Bill C-16, introduced earlier this day, be deemed not to have been introduced, read a first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for consideration at second reading stage and that the notice for introduction thereof be reinstated on the Notice Paper.

For the information of hon. members, there will be the briefing we had promised tomorrow morning. Then the bill will be properly introduced at 10 a.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and Bill C-16 withdrawn)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Health Care System

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member has another three minutes and 33 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, I would hope I would get some extra time for having been interrupted.

I was just saying that the federal government promised back in World War I that the income tax would only be a temporary war measure. We know what has happened to income tax, so there is a lot of skepticism if one were to get into a fifty-fifty project.

It is interesting that some members, the NDP in particular, and other Canadians are really concerned about private health care in Canada. I really shake my head because we have private health care in Canada already. In reality every doctor's office, most of the clinics and most of the labs are private facilities. These groups, and again I point to the NDP, shudder at the thought of private hospitals, claiming that private hospitals are more concerned about the bottom line than they are about patient care. I have news for them. Public hospitals are also concerned about that.

I know that in my own riding there is a hospital where the administrator admitted that the hospital preferred to have long term care beds for seniors and others than surgical beds, because they were cheaper for the hospital to maintain. It was cheaper for the hospital to have seniors in extended care situations than to treat surgical patients. Why? Because the hospital was able to meet the bottom line and balance its budget, or at least get close. Even public hospitals are concerned about cost cutting measures.

Another example in my riding is a Surrey hospital which in the 1980s and 1990s went through some major, extensive renovations. It opened new wings, then turned around and moved out of the old wings and into the new wings. In essence no new beds or new facilities were created for the patients. Even though the population has increased by 100,000, for all intents and purposes, there are no extra beds available.

We have to be concerned. I have asked my constituents a number of times about these issues. I would like to share with the House that two-thirds of 1,700 respondents indicated that they did not have a problem with private hospitals. I gave them lots of information. I even mentioned that in the United States there was a study indicating that there was a two per cent higher risk of dying in a private hospital, and they still felt they could support it. They also supported paying for services. They felt that it was important to get facilities and to be able to pay for them.

It is time to quit studying the problem and to start fixing it. Canadians want to have an affordable, top notch health care system where no one is denied necessary medical services and where people receive the services in a timely manner. Everyone has to do one's part for this to happen, including Canadians.

Last but not least, Canadians have to take responsibility for living healthier lifestyles. Last night we saw a series on obesity. Canadians must take responsibility for their own health and well-being and live better lifestyles so that there is less reliance on our medical system to make up for their own negligence.

Canadians are ready for significant changes in our health care system. They want to have access to it. They need to have access to it but they want to have some choice. They are prepared to pay more to have that choice. It is time for the government to show a little courage, look beyond the status quo and provide Canadians with an adequate health care system that meets the needs of all Canadians regardless of their income.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick comment and then a question for my colleague.

It seems to me that with the recent release of the Kirby report and the upcoming release, finally, of the much awaited Romanow report on the status of health care and the recommendations that we expect to be contained therein, it appears as though both those reports will primarily deal with the dollars and cents; that we will go down this road yet again, as the member alluded to in her opening comments, of simply asking for more money.

It would seem to me that the cry we have been hearing from coast to coast to coast in Canada is that it is simply not enough, that much more needs to be done to fix our ailing health care system and to provide the level and degree of health care that every Canadian is looking for.

With that likely to be the case, that Kirby will be asking for somewhere between $5 billion and $6 billion more per year to be thrown into the existing health care system and likely Romanow will be calling for something similar, does she believe that with the recent admission, today as a matter of fact, of the government of its continued overtaxation of Canadians and the abundance tax revenue that it has, that there is room within the existing budget to provide the necessary funds for health care and that we do not need to look outside of it for yet more taxation from the government that has already taxed Canadians more heavily than any government in history?

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

Madam Speaker, there is no question that the government has to set priorities. I know with Canadians, health care is their top priority. The government has to identify that as its top priority and allocate the funds, which are already there for health care, within the budget. Instead of subsidizing and giving grants to businesses, corporations and special interest groups, it could be diverting that money to the health care system.

I have a friend who is very involved in the administration of a not for profit hospital in the United States in Washington State. They get many Canadians down there using their own money and money from our health care insurance policies to subsidize the American public health system. We in this country had better figure out a way to keep that money in our own country to support our own public health system instead of supporting the American health system.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was at the 1983 NDP convention when Tommy Douglas was addressing the crowd, the last speech he gave before he passed away. His whole speech was a cautionary tale. He said that as difficult as it was to win the medicare debate, that it would be even more difficult to hang onto it because there will always be the enemies of medicare who are seeking to tear it down, the privateers who never really liked it to begin with and were always against it and who will do anything to discredit and to destabilize the system by which most people identify themselves as Canadians.

The only part of the hon. member's speech, frankly, that I would like to give any credence to is the point she made about the funding mechanisms. Would she agree that back in the old days of the EPF system, established programs financing, where it was fifty-fifty, that an erosion took place through the cap and then the cap on cap to the CHST to where the federal government is now only at 14% of the total health care cost? Would she not agree that if we went back to a fifty-fifty program financing formula that the province of British Columbia would not have had to raise its PST and we would have an adequately funded system that would not be at risk from the privateers?

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

Madam Speaker, certainly the fact that the Liberal government cut the health care budget by billions of dollars did not help matters. However putting more money into the system to pay the existing people higher salaries will not solve the problem. It will not open up new beds and it will not open up new training facilities to get more doctors and more nurses into the industry.

I take real exception to a socialist who feels that dumping more money in to support his labour colleagues is the answer. It is not. It is going to take a commitment from absolutely everybody to make this thing right. He has to understand that Canadians support a health care system. They support the national insurance program that we have. However that does not mean that we cannot have a mixture in delivery of the service. We have a national health care insurance program. Nobody is arguing that and nobody wants to change that.

What we are saying is that there has to be a better way of delivering health care services so people are not dying while on a waiting list to get the surgery and the treatment they need. That is what is happening right now. Canadians are dying while on the waiting list. That should not happen. It is happening because we are trying to maintain the status quo and the status quo is not working.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as we know, physical inactivity is a serious public health problem. One-third of Canadian children are obese according to a Statistics Canada report released two weeks ago. Close to 60% of young people are inactive to the point of endangering their health.

As children enter adolescence their physical activities start dropping sharply. Young Canadians aged 2 to 11 are estimated to spend an average of 19 hours per week watching television. Clearly the range of recreational choices available to young people has changed. Their habits have changed but not for the better. Three-quarters of overweight teens will still be overweight when they reach adulthood. The adverse effects of inactivity are taking their toll on the health and well-being of Canadians.

We must indeed be concerned by the rising rates of obesity anew and the high rates of physical inactivity among Canadians. As we can see, physical inactivity is dangerously gaining ground. For public health the impact is disastrous, incurring $2.1 billion per year in direct health care costs. Clearly, reducing the sedentary lifestyle of Canadians is critical to the future health of Canadians and the future of our health care system.

I believe that participation in physical activity and sport contributes to the prevention of illness and the enhancement of quality of life of all Canadians. Therefore, physical activity and sport should be viewed as an important vehicle for health promotion and disease prevention. Like other forms of physical activity, sport contributes to the health and fitness of its participants. When we invest in initiatives to encourage Canadians to engage in physical activity and sport we are investing in the long term health and well-being of Canadians.

An increased investment in sport means a decrease in health care costs. The benefits of participation in sport are well documented. They include reaching and maintaining a healthy weight and improved cardiovascular and muscular fitness, contributing to an improved quality of life. Studies have shown that participating in sports and physical activity increases resistance to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, obesity and mental health disorders. It is also estimated that if all Canadians were active this would save $5 billion annually in direct and indirect costs.

I know my colleague, the Minister of Health, strongly shares my concerns. That is why we are working together to develop linkages between healthy living, physical activity and sport. We are concerned by the rising rates of obesity in youth and the high physical inactivity rates among Canadians. To be able to contribute fully to society and to enjoy the best of life, first one must have good health. We all agree that good health comes from participation and physical activity in sport.

The national strategy for healthy living, physical activity and sport, announced in the Speech from the Throne will be a crucial tool to build a healthier nation. Recognizing the important contributions of physical activity in sport to the health of Canadians, as the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport I will be pushing for a balanced health care model that includes both treatment and care and disease prevention and health promotion. I look forward to continue working with the Minister of Health in developing this strategy.

I was pleased that Senator Kirby and the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology share this vision. In fact the Kirby report makes several references to the need for a sharper government focus in the areas of illness, disease and injury prevention. The report states that the standing committee was told repeatedly by those it consulted that government should develop public policies and programs that address non-medical determinants of health.

The Kirby report urges the Government of Canada to promote health and wellness by encouraging Canadians “to take a more active role in improving their health through for example, exercise, healthy food and lifestyle choices”.

I agree and that is why I have been actively promoting the need for greater strategic investments in initiatives that support increased participation in sport and physical activity. In short, we need to continue to support and invest in initiatives that promote a culture of physical activity, and foster healthy habits among all Canadians from the earliest age. In many areas the Government of Canada has already taken this action.

In April, my colleague, the Minister of Health, unveiled new physical activity guides for children and youth. These guides demonstrate the commitment of the Government of Canada to promote the health of our children and youth. We must all encourage children and youth to live more healthy and active lives.

These first-ever national physical activity guidelines for children and youth recommend that inactive children and youth increase the amount of time they currently spend being physically active by at least 30 minutes per day and decrease the time they currently spend sitting still by at least 30 minutes per day.

The goal of the guides is to provide parents, educators, physicians and community leaders with the information they need to help increase physical activity levels in children and youth, and lay the groundwork for healthy growth and development.

The guidelines were developed in partnership with the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology and are strongly supported by the Canadian Paediatric Society and the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

In April I had the honour to introduce in the House of Commons the proposed act to promote physical activity and sport. The bill demonstrates, once more, the Government of Canada's commitment to encourage, promote and develop physical activity and sport in Canada.

By introducing the bill the Government of Canada seeks, among other things, to encourage greater cooperation among the various governments, physical activity groups, sport communities, and the private sector to increase participation in sport among all Canadians.

Developed in concert with Health Canada, the bill recognizes that physical activity and sports are an integral part of Canadians' lifestyle and culture.

It also recognizes that sport and physical activity provide considerable benefits in terms of health, social cohesion and economic activity.

We want more Canadians to engage in physical activity, practice sport and get moving. However, we recognize that some Canadians face significant barriers in participation in physical activity and sport. For this reason the Government of Canada has taken action to facilitate the participation in sport among girls and young women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, youth at risk, visible minorities and the economically disadvantaged.

In July of this year I had the privilege to announce $551,500 in funding for 14 projects under the sport participation development program. The program was developed on the basis that all Canadians should have access to and benefit from participating in quality sport activities at all levels. We are proud to support national sport organizations in their efforts to increase ongoing participation in sport, recruit new participants and reduce dropout rates.

I am confident that the projects supported by the sport participation development program will contribute to getting more Canadians involved in sport and that this will result in more active and healthy Canadians. Clearly from the federal initiatives that I have outlined the Government of Canada is working to create a culture of physical activity to foster healthy habits among all Canadians from the earliest age.

Right now, in Canada, only 48% of girls between the ages of 5 and 14 play a sport, compared to 61% of boys. The Government of Canada is concerned about the fact that a majority of Canadian girls and women are not reaping the benefits of physical activity. This is a problem we must address.

The Government of Canada is committed to increasing participation in sport at all levels and throughout the lives of girls and women. We will work together with the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity, and similar organizations in the provinces and territories to implement a sport participation strategy for girls and women.

We are not just developing strategies. We are taking action and supporting effective initiatives to get girls and women active.

Today I was pleased to participate in a walk with many of my hon. colleagues to promote On the Move Walking Clubs, a national initiative designated by CAAWS, the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity, to increase the participation of girls and women in sport and physical activity. Initiatives like On the Move highlight the importance of making time for exercise.

The Minister of Health and I applaud Chatelaine magazine and CAAWS for putting this program in place to encourage women to be active, which contributes to good health and ultimately a better quality of life.

On April 6, 2002, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for sport, fitness and recreation endorsed the new Canadian Sport Policy. This is the first Canadian sport policy to have resulted from a cooperative effort by all 14 governments and extensive consultations with the sport community.

The Canadian Sport Policy is predicated on objectives of increased participation, excellence, resource allocation and interaction.

To translate these objectives into clear measures, all the governments signing on to the policy together defined their targets in a statement of priorities. This is a firm commitment. Each government has undertaken to implement measures over the next three years. Ministers responsible for sport recognize that we all must work together to increase the practice of sport by all Canadians. This objective of sport for all is an objective of public health and equal opportunity. In other words, participation in all types of sports, at every level.

To expand the practice of sport by all Canadians, governments have committed to identifying and eliminating the barriers to participation in sport, be it social, linguistic, cultural or economic. If we want more young people to practise sport and engage in physical activity, we recognize that we need to coordinate our efforts to facilitate access to sport facilities throughout Canada.

At the same time, each province and territory has undertaken to make sport and physical activity more important in school. The provinces and territories have committed to promoting these activities and exploring the various options.

The Government of Canada believes that sport and physical activity are an integral part of Canadian society and culture and, among other things, produce benefits in terms of health and quality of life. Reducing the sedentary lifestyles of Canadians is critical to the future health of Canadians and the future of our health care system. This is why as Secretary of State for Amateur Sport I will continue to promote participation in sport and physical activity as a way of life in Canada.

Good health and well-being begins with each one of us. We all need to fit physical activity into our lives. The Government of Canada believes sport is a priority for the public health as it is a fundamental element of the health and well-being of Canadians. We are committed to encouraging Canadians to improve their health by integrating physical activity into their daily lives and to assist in reducing barriers that prevent Canadians from being active.

We will continue to take action federally and to work with our partners to build a sporting and healthy nation.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, today the government announced $15 million to study obesity. I would like to give the secretary of state an option that would dramatically reduce obesity and it would not cost him a penny. Why does he not work with the provincial ministers of education and health to ensure that physical education becomes mandatory from K1 to grade 10? That was done in British Columbia. It would have a profound impact on the health of children and adults by getting them active, as the secretary of state correctly said.

The second question deals with the issue of children and a headstart program, not some large social engineering project but one that would focus on proper parenting, where parents would learn proper nutrition, discipline and care for children. Recent studies have shown that proper parenting is the most important factor in ensuring that children would be productive and integrated members of society, .

Will the hon. secretary of state push in cabinet for the Minister of Health to work with her provincial counterparts and the provincial ministers of education to ensure that physical education would be mandatory from K1 to grade 10, and for a simple headstart program that would focus on ensuring that parents have good parenting skills?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact the new Canadian sports policy that I referred to in my comments does have as one of its action plans, and it has been endorsed by all provinces and territories, to make physical activity and physical education more prominent in the schools.

The hon. member said we should make it compulsory from kindergarten to grade 10. That is an area of provincial jurisdiction. Certainly the federal government is there to encourage our partners in the provinces and territories who have jurisdiction over education. If they were to do that, it would be swell. However, that is their jurisdiction.

They have undertaken to make it more prominent in the schools. It is in the sports policy and action plan that they have endorsed. We will be meeting again as ministers responsible for sport in Bathurst prior to the Canada Games in February. One of the questions that I will be asking my provincial and territorial colleagues is what progress they have made on that action plan that we had agreed to in Iqaluit last year.

The hon. member makes reference to proper parenting and the headstart program. Those are areas that are important as well. From the Minister of Health's perspective or from mine as Secretary of State responsible for Amateur Sport, it goes beyond our jurisdiction to be setting up parenting programs. Those are in the area of social services which fall under provincial jurisdiction. I agree in principle that good nutritional habits would go a long way to assist young people in developing healthy lifestyles and would save us the health costs down the road.

Canada being what it is with the jurisdictional divisions, we are there to encourage our partners, but we are certainly not able to dictate to them measures that they should enact.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not getting up to criticize the idea that getting people to exercise is not a good idea. It is a good idea. However, it would be wrong for the secretary of state to imply that by getting people to be more active would therefore solve problems with the health care system. It would not; it would defer the problems.

For example, over the last 30 years, there has been an increase in life expectancy of one year for about every five years that is passed. People live longer but that does not mean it costs the health care system less. Sometimes it costs more because people get more serious diseases when they actually do get ill in that age range of 65 to 75. We would defer the problem by getting people more active. We cannot use sports and activities as a way to avoid the costs. That is not true.

Some British Columbia statistics show that young people between the ages of 18 and 30 visit a doctor on average of once a year from sports injuries. It is a fact that when people become active, they sometimes injure themselves that way.

It is a good idea to keep people active because it makes them generally more healthy and they live longer, but it would not fix the health care problems. Does the secretary of state recognize that?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Not for a moment, Madam Speaker, did I suggest that having people more physically active would cure all the health care problems. That was not my intent. However, it would have an impact because they would live healthier lives. The hon. member points out quite rightly that we are all going to die, but in the words of the old country song, “I wanna go to heaven, but I don't wanna die”.

If we were living more healthy lives, then, yes, there would come a time when we would no doubt reach the point where we might be on the health care system prior to our demise. That is a far cry from going through 20 or 30 years with Type II diabetes or some of the other diseases of which the likelihood of contracting is much higher through physical inactivity and certain lifestyles.

There are studies that have estimated a savings of up to $5 billion if all Canadians were as active as the small percentage of Canadians who are physically active. I disagree with the hon. member's premise.

With regard to sports injuries, there is a cost to everything. To become physically active, one must get out and run, and one might twist an ankle. However, the benefits are much greater when one gets out and becomes physically active and physically fit, than to sit back and say that one will not risk a twisted ankle.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with part of what my colleague just said. Exercise is an important thing, but it is not the answer to the health problem. I do not know that the minister actually thinks this is the answer.

Today the Secretary of State mentioned a program for women called “On the Move”. I realize, Madam Speaker, that you are in the Chair and cannot say anything but I think both of us could inform the minister that women have always been on the move. Women are on the move even more now because we run from one job that gives us a salary to another job that does not pay, at home. We do that because we are taxed to death and women have to work to make ends meet for their families.

As we have been told many times, the Kirby report has a price tag in it of $5 billion. Could the minister tell me how many MRI machines could have been purchased for $5 billion?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, no obviously I do not have that figure. I do not understand the reasoning behind the member's question either.

As I understand it, the Kirby report is recommending an investment of an additional $5 billion in the health care system which would cover, as set out in the report, various measures. I do not understand the direction of the question when she asks what it would cost for MRIs.

To repeat the comments I made to the previous questioner, I am not suggesting that having Canadians more physically active is the solution to the health care problem. I am saying it would be one that would assist in some of the cost and would be part of a solution to the health care question.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to underline the necessity of bringing taxes down. My family and I went through exactly the same thing, working day and night. I carried two jobs. I worked until July 1 just to pay my tax bill and then for the rest of the year I worked for my family. I did not have time to exercise. How do members think I got into the shape I am in? It was because of a lack of exercise. The reason for my lack of exercise was because I had to work to pay my bloody taxes. That is the message.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have never heard anything more ridiculous in all my life. I am sure the member does not seriously mean that. Obviously people have to make the time. Time is a great equalizer. Whether one is a millionaire or a pauper, we all have the same amount of time. We have to realize that our health is important. We have to make the time to be physically active.

The government will reduce taxes by $100 billion over the next five years.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, if anyone believes that this government is reducing taxes, then they believe in the tooth fairy.

I want to start out my remarks tonight by laying out for the people back home who are watching this debate what I believe is going on here. The government is without an agenda. The government is in disarray and chaos because it is involved in a leadership campaign that really has not yet been called. We have a Prime Minister who says he will hang around for another 14 or 15 months.

The government prorogued Parliament and gave itself, and by extension ourselves as well, a break of an extra couple of weeks this summer after an already three month summer break from Parliament. This break supposedly was given to us because the government had an agenda. The government prorogued Parliament, killed the government and private member's bills, and that session was ended. The government came back to the House with a throne speech, and here we are. Let us take a look at what has happened this week.

A member asks if this is about health care. Health care is exactly what this is about.

On Monday we had a take note debate on health care. Usually take note debates, like emergency debates, are held after we do the regular business of the House and it extends into the evening. Tuesday was a Bloc supply day, so the opposition set the agenda. Today we are again debating the health care motion. Tomorrow is another opposition supply day. Where is the agenda of the government? The fact is it does not have a clue what it is doing. I am not saying that a debate on health care is something that we should not have.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

You just said it.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

No, I did not just say it. What I said is that the government has no agenda. It does not have any legislation to put before this House. It has had four or five months since it adjourned the House in June and it has done--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member will address his comments through the Chair please.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I thought I was, Madam Speaker. I did not say you once. I meant the opposition that is heckling over there. At any rate, I think I have made my point for the people who are watching that the government is devoid of ideas and that is why we are involved in this debate today.

I will be splitting my time, Madam Speaker, to give some time to my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who has done an incredible amount of work over the years on the issue of health care. He has tirelessly recommended reforms and changes to our present health care system, much more than I have ever heard come from any of a succession of health care ministers of the government, since I came here in 1993, and much more than I have ever heard from anybody on that side of the House, other than to suggest the status quo.

If Liberal members wanted to be involved in the debate why were they not up a couple of hours ago when they had a slot that they gave to the socialists. They had an extra 10 minute slot but nobody wanted to talk over there so they gave it to the NDP. Now they want to talk when I am trying to talk. This is just incredible.

The Liberals want to be involved in the debate on health care. They are trying to suggest that the problem rests with the provinces and they are the reason we have these problems with health care. Yet the government, from 1994 to 2001, slashed cumulatively $25 billion from health care transfers to the provinces. Then it says the provinces have created the problem because they are the ones that administer health care.

I think the Canadian people are smarter than that. They know that the problem originated right over there when the Liberals made poor spending choices. They would rather subsidize businesses and some of their friends with pork-barrel politics and patronage. Those are the choices they made rather than put money into health care and our national defence, which is a whole other issue.

Obviously money alone is simply not enough. We on this side recognize that. For the Kirby report, and then pretty soon the Romanow report, to come out and suggest that $5 billion, or $6 billion or $9 billion or, whatever the magical number is, will somehow solve the health care problems that we face is simply a falsehood.

I want to take a couple of minutes to mention that I represent a huge rural riding. Prince George--Peace River is the eighth largest riding in the country, with over 200,000 square kilometres. We have a serious shortage of doctors, nurses and trained medical professionals up in northern British Columbia. From talking to a number of my colleagues, I know that is not unique to towns like Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Fort Nelson, Mackenzie, Tumbler Ridge, Chetwynd, or even Prince George, for that matter, which is a major centre in central northern British Columbia, or Kamloops. It is a serious problem throughout British Columbia and all across the country.

Believe it or not, I recently read some good articles in the Ottawa Citizen . It is running stories this week in the city section about the growing shortage of health care professionals and doctors in Ontario and in the City of Ottawa. In yesterday's paper it said that 25 years ago there was a decision made that we had too many doctors so the provinces took action to stem the flow. Those measures were so successful that today 900,000 Ontarians have no family doctor.

This is serious. The status quo is not good enough. Over the last number of years we have heard Canadian Alliance MPs say over and over again that we seriously have to address this issue. We cannot just throw a few more billion dollars at it, circle the wagons and somehow pretend that will solve the problems of health care. People on waiting lists to see a doctor are dying.

I talked to some doctors the other day when they were here for their annual lobbying efforts to try to educate politicians about some of the problems they face on a daily basis. One doctor told me that it was not just a problem with doctors. Sometimes a doctor can examine a patient, arrange for an operating room, get it set up for the operation and then one person is missing.

Maybe it is the recovery room nurse who is not there and the whole operation is put on hold and people are told to go away because they cannot operate. The room is available. The doctors and the anesthesiologist are there. Everything is there except for one cog in the system, and the patient suffers and unfortunately sometimes dies. We have to get serious about this.

I want to give some time to my hon. colleague from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, a doctor who has actually practised in my riding of Prince George--Peace River, in the city of Prince George, for a number of years. As with many rural MPs from all parties, I fight all the time to try to help foreign doctors get into this country, and thank God we have them, but that too is not the answer.

The country is seriously short of medical professionals and money alone is not going to solve the problem. We have to start looking at a lot of different options, one of which I spoke about earlier, which is alternative medicine. We have to look at more ways to prevent illness rather than react to it.

I am going to give my remaining time to my colleague.