Mr. Chairman, they could not have chosen a better moment to discuss those issues. The Bloc Quebecois received with great skepticism the interim report of the Commission on the Future of Health Carein Canada.
Why were we so skeptic? Try to imagine the situation we are in. I hope the minister will make the effort and try to understand our situation.
Since coming to power in 1993-94, the Liberals have reduced transfer payments to the provinces by nearly $30 billion. They have literally, deliberately weakened the provincial health care systems.
The federal government has never been in a better position financially, its revenue increasing by more than 6.5% a year.
The federal government has some gall to come to us now and say “We want to think about the future of health care”.
Between 1947 and 1972, each province created its own hospital insurance plan. It is impossible for the federal government not to know that the provinces developed their own plan with their own public funds during those years.
At the time, the Liberal governments were committed to 50-50 funding. This was a cost-shared program in which half of the money was to come from the federal government and half from the provinces.
Today—and this must be a source of embarrassment to the minister—fourteen cents of every health dollar spent in Quebec comes from the federal government. I think there is no possibility of dialogue with the provinces. I see the minister is getting all agitated, and I would challenge him to stand up and tell us that is wrong. There is no possibility of dialogue with the provinces if we do not put the federal share back where it was supposed to be, at 50 cents of each dollar spent.
Does this mean that no thought must be given to how services are going to be organized? It must, and this is so much the case that thought must also be given to the fact that the very good government of Quebec, led by Bernard Landry, he who provides very good government to the people of Quebec, has set up the Clair commission.
Seven other provinces have followed Quebec's lead, and now there are eight task forces that have made recommendations on the future of health care.
What has changed in health care? Today, the issue is no longer senior citizens. For example, if she does not smoke too much, goes to the gym regularly and has good determinants of health, the minister should live to be 86 years old. Incidentally, we wish her a long life, not in politics, but in real life.
This is why we are no longer talking about the old, but the very old. This means that governments must plan health care in co-operation with the communities. People no longer want to be kept in the health care system. They no longer want to stay in hospital for too long. This is why we must rethink the whole issue. The two spectra of life are forcing us to rethink our health care approach. People live longer and they live longer in their communities. We must rethink palliative care and home care.
If we do not want people to go to hospital, it means that frontline services must be available. In Quebec, which is a model for Canada and several other countries, we have local community service centres, better known as CLSCs. The challenge for lawmakers is to find ways to provide proximity services in people's natural environment. We looked at the changes.
I would be curious to know. I asked the Library of Parliament—I am an intellectual, I read all the time—to see what had become of the various measures announced in the National Forum on Health.
First, is there anyone in the House who thinks that the Romanow commission is going to tell us anything other than what we learned from the National Forum on Health?
From 1995 to 1997, the Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, chaired the National Forum on Health. We saw the forum's report. The government invested $300 million in the Health Transition Fund. We now know what the major changes in the health care system will be. We are no longer listing the changes and receiving information about them. The provinces have completed this exercise, as did the federal government with the National Forum on Health.
Now, we must make sure that our budgets will be up to the challenge. Whatever our political stripe—to the left of the New Democratic Party or to the right of the Canadian Alliance—one fact is inevitable. Whoever the federal Minister of Health is, one fact is inevitable. For example, if Quebec wants to provide exactly the same health care and services, and no more, it is going to have to increase its funding by 5%. This will be true up until 2010.
I could add that at the first ministers' conference, they looked at possible resources. It is not possible that the Minister of Health does not know this. In 1994-95, when the Liberals were in power, the provinces invested $48 billion in the health care system. In 2002, they invested $67 billion. In 2010, they will be investing $88 billion.
Considering the present fiscal situation, provinces are unable to meet the demand. This is why, regardless of their political stripes, Premier Bernard Lord, Premier Campbell in British Columbia, New Democrats in Saskatchewan and Conservatives in Ontario have unanimously asked the federal government not to reflect, not to tell provinces what to do or use an authoritarian approach to reorganize what is a provincial jurisdiction, but to loosen its purse strings.
This will be the challenge for the federal government in the years to come: assume historical responsibilities. I would be very disappointed if the minister, who no doubt has very finequalities, was not very vocal about this issue in cabinet and did not show herself to be a staunch ally.
We cannot count on the Prime Minister to be an ally of the provinces. As we know, he is a stubborn and insensitive person and we cannot count on him to become an ally of the provinces. We can, however, rely on the minister, who has a sweeter disposition and a more conciliatory attitude, to recognize that without a substantial increase in resources, provinces will never be able to meet the demands of the various health systems.
I will conclude by mentioning that in September I will move a motion in the standing committee on health, for which I hope to gain the support of all my colleagues. There is one thing the federal government could do, and it is to ensure that when new drugs are registered, they have new therapeutic value.
The Patented Medicine Price Review Board has noticed that 80% of new drugs on the market are actually not new. The Senate of Canada has estimated that when a new drug comes on the market, pressure for its use occur during the first 12 months.
The standing committee on health and the federal government could review the whole question of the introduction of new drugs on the market and ensure that they have new therapeutic value.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is up. Even if the minister is asking me to go on, I will yield to your authority and answer questions.