Debates of June 9th, 2005

Health

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada ruling could jeopardize the public health system of Quebec, a system that best serves Quebeckers.

Since the Supreme Court ruling unfortunately has the force of law, can the Prime Minister guarantee that that there will be no cuts to federal funding, which would penalize Quebec patients who rely on the public system for their health?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that we have transferred in excess of $41 billion over 10 years precisely to help the provinces, including Quebec of course. Quebec will receive more than $9 billion over 10 years to address the issue of waiting lists. We have, therefore, already demonstrated, long before the court ruling, how important this is to us.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question.

With the ruling—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Stop yelling. Those people often talk about civility, but they rarely display it.

In light of today's Supreme Court ruling, can the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no cuts to Quebec's share of federal funding under the agreements? That is the question. I want an answer.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the implication of the hon. member's question, funding has increased over the last several years. It is more than ever before. It is more than what Romanow had indicated.

The questions are for the opposition members. They wanted market reforms. The Leader of the Opposition talks about maximum flexibility for the private providers and market reforms in health care. That is what will wreck health care.

What is important for health care to make it stronger and better is the resources we have provided across the country.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court ruling today changes things, or could change them. That is the situation.

This is what I want to ask the Prime Minister. Rather than patting himself on the back, could he answer the question? Does this ruling have an impact on federal funding for the health care system in Quebec? Yes or no? Let him explain.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the funding is in place for the next 10 years on a basis that is well known to all Canadians, including Quebeckers. What is important is I have spoken to Dr. Couillard. He has been on television and in the press saying that this does not call into question the fundamentals of our public health care system, where universal access and equality is protected for all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned the basis of the agreement. Today, a ruling by the Supreme Court in Ottawa involves changes for Quebec. I am not saying I am pleased with those changes, but there are changes.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Oh, oh!

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

If the Minister of Transport would stop bellowing, perhaps for once in his life he would understand a question.

This is my question for the Minister of Health. Could he tell me whether Quebec will be penalized in any way by today's ruling?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the issue before the court today that the court really ruled upon in essence is the Quebec charter.

It is important for the hon. member to remember that the yelling usually comes from that end. It does not come from this end.

It is also important for him to remember that there is a significant amount of money over the next 10 years that has been promised to all of the provinces across the country, including Quebec. That money would not go away. It is there for the next 10 years on a basis that is predictable and fair to all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is claiming that Quebec does not have a two-tier system. The Supreme Court ruling is again sounding the alarm we first raised in this House. There is, for instance, a private clinic in Gatineau where patients can pay only with VISA. Operating rooms in Montreal are up for bids, and patients can be operated on sooner if they can pay.

This is my question for the Prime Minister. If this is not two tiered medicine, then what is it?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our objective is to have the best public, accessible and universal system possible, which is why we called the federal-provincial conference. That is why we invested in excess of $41 billion over 10 years. That is why, in conjunction with the provinces, we created an entire strategy to reduce waiting times. That strategy is to increase the number of physicians and nurses, and to create a $4.5 billion fund, strictly with a view to reducing waiting times.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is some history and some facts to be corrected here. The fact is that medicare was brought to this House by Tommy Douglas not in a minority government but through the NDP.

Also, there is not a single word in the health accord of last fall to stop two tier medicine in Canada. There are clinics operating in Vancouver and Toronto where a person has to pay $2,300 just to get started. In Alberta it is $600 for an MRI. In Quebec now, people can get an operation faster if they pay.

Are those not examples of two tier medicine? Why will the government not actually act to stop it?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have written to several of the provinces where there are clinics that are operating possibly in contravention of the Canada Health Act.

I want the hon. member to know it is not the words that stopped two tier from development. It is the money and the resources which we have provided over the next 10 years, $41 billion for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, $4.5 billion of that to reduce wait times across the country.

Audiotaped Conversations

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner's mandate is to administer the Prime Minister's conflict of interest code for public office holders. Public office holders are defined as “a person other than a public servant who works on behalf of a minister”. This definition would include the Prime Minister's chief of staff, and Mr. Murphy has in the past filed reports with the Ethics Commissioner stating he has complied with the code.

The Prime Minister refused to contact the authorities, on one hand, and on the other hand, the Ethics Commissioner says he cannot investigate the chief of staff.

Just who is responsible then for the unethical behavioural of ministerial staff?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that I have said right from the very beginning that my staff and I will corroborate fully. We want all the facts to come out. Nothing will be held back. We will work completely in any way, shape or form that the Ethics Commissioner requests.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree it appears that they do not hold anything back in getting votes.

Tim Murphy has filed conflict of interest compliance reports with the Ethics Commissioner as recently as May 31, 2005.

In the Prime Minister's message attached to the conflict of interest code, he states, “Our government must uphold the public trust to the highest possible standard, and this responsibility falls uniquely on all of us as public office holders”.

As the holder of the highest public office in Canada, does the Prime Minister believe that having his ministers and his chief of staff discuss illegal vote buying schemes is upholding the public trust to the highest possible standard?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said, the Prime Minister was informed that the member for Newton—North Delta wanted to cross the floor. The Prime Minister said that no offer was to be made. The hon. member did not cross the floor and no offer was made. In fact, as the Prime Minister said, the government will cooperate fully with the Ethics Commissioner.

The difficulty with the member opposite is that he cannot accept yes for an answer.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister and the chief of staff of the Prime Minister were caught red-handed trying to buy votes in order to save that corrupt government.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast, I am sure, has heard my admonitions in respect of discussion on these matters in the House. Given the Ethics Commissioner's investigation and the letter I received from him, I have given two admonitions on this subject. I would have thought the hon. member would have paid very close attention to both. I think he knows that while he may get away with mentioning one of the names he mentioned, the other is out of order. He will want to confine his remarks and be very careful in what he says.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like is for the immigration minister to be careful in what he says, because having tried and failed to buy the support of a member of the opposition, the government's approach is then to try to destroy that person. The immigration minister then speculates about deporting that member.

Does threatening to deport a member of Parliament whom the Liberals have failed to buy not reflect more the politics of a banana republic than a modern democracy like Canada?