Debates of Nov. 28th, 2006

Opposition Motion—Health Care

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her cogent comments. She is vice-chair of the health committee and is doing an extremely good job on behalf of Canadians.

When we talk about seniors and seniors' care and palliative care, things that will become more and more prevalent in our society simply because of our aging population, the demands are there. Yet how can we have cuts in areas where we clearly will have to backfill and come up with new programs?

It is just yet another example of there being a lack of social conscience and vision on behalf of the Conservative government. It will pay for it.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the past several months our health minister has had discussions with health ministers from every province and territory to obtain their views on the opportunities and challenges they see in reducing wait times. Already some provinces have tackled complex issues and they are achieving improved results and making progress toward being ready for a guarantee, which is the next logical step in our health care step.

Ontario reports reducing wait times in eight of nine services it tracks, and that is since 2005. Over the last three years Ontario has decreased wait times for angiography by 25 days and for MRI scans by 29 days. In the last year cataract surgery wait times in Ontario have decreased by 61 days.

Quebec is leading the way in guaranteeing timely access and recourse in two priority areas. Further its service corridor model allows cancer patients' waiting times for more than eight weeks to be transferred between the radiation oncology centres.

Manitoba and Quebec have indicated that they are providing de facto guarantees to some cardiac services and cancer treatments.

Manitoba's wait time for cancer radiotherapy is down one week from over six weeks in 1999.

Alberta's hip and knee replacement pilot project has shown success in reducing wait times from 47 weeks to 4.7 weeks. That is a tenfold decrease.

In British Columbia the median wait time for cataract surgery fell from 9.7 weeks in 2005 to 7.4 weeks in 2006.

These examples, and there are many more, clearly show that when we work with focus and determination, when we have a common goal and, most important, when governments work together, we can deliver to Canadians the kind of health care they deserve.

Last summer our Minister of Health met with health ministers from Denmark, Sweden, Mexico and France to see how other nations had been able to reduce wait times. For example, Sweden introduced its national maximum wait times guarantee in 2005. Its plan includes patients to be treated elsewhere if waits become excessive.

Denmark's extended choice of hospitals initiative was launched in 2002. If its health care system is unable to provide treatment within two months, patients have the option of being treated in a private facility or another country.

The United Kingdom has a choice at six months policy, which means patients who wait more than six months for elective surgery will be offered the choice of moving to another provider for faster treatment. The U.K. program is a good example of system triggered recourse. The patient is not required to file a complaint at six months. The choice is automatically offered.

These international examples show the kinds of guarantees that are possible for governments to offer their citizens. Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom did not deliver patient wait times guarantee overnight. It was a process founded on improving the management of their health care systems to use tax dollars more efficiently and effectively to provide their citizens with better health outcomes.

The message from international experience is simple. The effectiveness of a nation's health care system depends on two things, its medicine and its management. To provide the very best, countries must do both equally well.

Canada is a world leader in many scientific medical based endeavours. Our scientists and our scientific community are among the most valued in the world, often in terms of scientific citations being at the forefront of their disciplines.

This is something, as a country, we need to be proud of. Recent successes in the provincial management of wait times are indicators that we are making progress on the management of our system and this includes the financial management of that system.

Let us address the money issue head on. There is a lot of new money going into our health system: $41 billion dollars in new money to the provinces and territories over the next 10 years, with a 6% increase for inflationary purposes each and every year.

Canadians want, and demand, to know that this money is being managed effectively. They want, as our government has promised, greater transparency in terms of what their tax dollars are delivering and they want greater accountability for those results.

As members saw in September, when our government announced the results of its expenditure review, we expect taxpayer dollars to be carefully spent and programmed to be properly managed.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today discussing an important motion. When I spoke earlier on this morning, I had mentioned the fact that the motion being brought forward to the House today was an issue that was important to all Canadians. We should all put aside our partisanship and ensure that we work together in collaboration and in cooperation with all of our stakeholders, with all provincial and territorial governments, to ensure that we actually achieve solutions to reduce wait times in this country.

We know that the Conservative government, during the last election campaign, promised a wait times guarantee whereby patients who could not receive treatment in their home province would be able to go to another province or, as they stated, even a private clinic. In terms of payment, not only for the patients themselves but also for their family members to accompany them, the funding would be provided by the Conservative government.

Could the member opposite please comment on whether the Conservatives see the federal government carrying this responsibility for a wait times guarantee? Or do they see the primary responsibility for a wait times guarantee and the reduction of wait times as a provincial responsibility? If it is the latter, will the Conservative government give any new or additional funding to help the provinces achieve the goals to reduce wait times?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West will want to know that there is less than a minute to respond.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to know that the wait times guarantee is a collaborative effort. We know that the federal government and the provinces form a partnership in the management of our health care system. We are committed to working with the provinces toward that goal.

What is more important is we are not just looking at Canada, we are looking at the rest of the world. As I mentioned in my speech, we are also looking at other countries that have recognized the need for patient wait times guarantee benchmarks for the delivery of those health services.

I am happy and proud that the health minister is going to use that information plus the results of some experiences in Canada, in particular, as I mentioned in my speech, Alberta's hip and knee replacement pilot project that resulted in a reduction from 47 weeks to 4.7 weeks.

These are the kinds of results that Canadians are looking for and these are the kinds of results that they are going to see delivered by the government in cooperation with the provinces.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 6 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Galipeau), Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The recorded division stands deferred until later this day at 8 p.m., pursuant to special order made earlier today.

Concurrence in Vote 10--Department of Natural Resources

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Vote 10, in the amount of $256,094,000, under NATURAL RESOURCES — Department — Grants and Contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007 be concurred in.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to this motion. Obviously, I am speaking in favour of the motion ensuring the funding for the Department of Natural Resources.

I understand there are some members of the opposition opposing this motion, the net effect of which would be to cut $64 million from Natural Resources Canada. I just do not think that is the responsible thing to do, considering a number of the very good things that are happening there, which I want to get to in a minute.

We all know that the Prime Minister has recently spoken about Canada emerging as an energy superpower. This is something that the Department of Natural Resources is directly responsible for. We are one of the leaders in oil and gas exploration. We are the largest supplier of uranium around the world. We have renewable energies emerging from wind to solar to tidal.

There are some very exciting things happening in the fields of energy right here in Canada, not to mention that over 900,000 Canadians work directly in resource industries in Canada, from forestry to mining. Trying to take $64 million from this department would have a direct impact on a lot of these programs which support these people.

I should mention that natural resources in our country contribute to $93.4 billion in the balance of trade, and that benefits every single region of this country. Why the opposition parties would want to try to remove this money from the government, and obviously they have their own reasons, really does not make sense.

After 13 years of the previous Liberal government in office, we have seen money being wasted within the government. We witnessed programs like the sponsorship program where the Liberals took, not government money but taxpayers' money, envelopes of cash and distributed it among their party faithful. They funnelled taxpayers' funds through ad agencies and then back to the Liberal Party.

We are making some changes within the Government of Canada across every single department to ensure there is accountability and to ensure that money that is being spent is delivering for Canadians. We are making those changes as we move forward.

I appreciate that there will be times where we do not catch things. We did inherit a culture that had gone right across government. We are working very hard to make these changes. In the first five months in office, our government passed the federal accountability act in the House of Commons to bring accountability into legislation. We put into law the amount of donations that people can make to political parties, and to ensure that the Auditor General, when she is following files, can follow the money trail right to the end so that she can have access to the various agencies.

What did the opposition parties do? What did the old Liberal Party do with this? The legislation was sent to the Senate. The Liberal senators completely rewrote the legislation to their own interests. They dragged it out for months and months, only for us to receive it back in this House in the last few weeks. We were able to turn that legislation around in a few days and send it back to the Senate.

The Canadian people are demanding accountability for every dollar that is spent here in Ottawa. That is something that we have pledged to do and that we are following up on.

This new government has had a number of other successes in this House. We have lowered taxes for every single Canadian. We were able to cut the GST to 6%. That impacted every single Canadian. We were able to introduce the universal child care benefit of $1,200--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Etobicoke North is rising on a point of order.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how broad a debate the Speaker will allow on this motion, but I thought we were speaking specifically, unless I am under some misapprehension, to a specific motion by the member for Winnipeg Centre. The minister is talking about tax cuts and the sponsorship program and other things. I do not know what their relevance is.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. member for his advice. If necessary, I will rule, but at this moment I am satisfied that the minister is doing his job.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague and my friend from the other side that voting against the motion of the President of the Treasury Board to fund the estimates for Natural Resources Canada would be tantamount to cutting $64 million out of the budget of Natural Resources Canada.

That is why accountability is relevant. We are talking about cutting $64 million, which would have a direct impact on the delivery of the support that we have for the mining industry, the forest industry, oil and gas, and renewable energy. At Natural Resources Canada, we are working on a number of initiatives that will help reduce greenhouse gases and reduce pollution. These are areas that we are working on in our department. That is why it is so important to have accountability.

We have seen programs from the old Liberal government. What was the result of those programs? The Liberal record on the environment was a national embarrassment. Under the old Liberal government, greenhouse gases rose 35% plus when they were supposed to be going down. Greenhouse gases rose each and every day, week and year that the Liberals were in office.

The Liberal programs did not deliver any results. Never once did the Liberals bring in any kind of legislation or programs to deal with the toxins and pollutants that are going into the atmosphere and having a direct impact on the air we breathe. These are priorities for the Conservative government. These are priorities for Natural Resources Canada. We are working on initiatives that will have benefits for every single Canadian.

It is important that we talk about accountability. It is important that we learn from the terrible mistakes made by the previous government. I must note that the Liberals hold up their heads now. The Liberals talk about the environment and how they are the great caretakers of the environment, yet after 13 years in office their record was abysmal. The numbers speak for themselves. The Liberals know this. We can go to any of the environmental organizations and ask them about the Liberal record.

The programs that we are delivering at Natural Resources Canada are directly related to the environment. Let me tell members how they are directly related. Eighty-five per cent of greenhouse gas emissions is directly linked to electricity or energy and how we use it. They come from the oil and gas sector, from the transportation sector and from the production of electricity, whether it be coal-fired plants or not, and we at Natural Resources Canada are delivering programs to help make an impact on these.

Natural Resources Canada is developing initiatives that will directly reduce these pollutants and emissions. Reducing the budget of Natural Resources Canada by $64 million would have a direct impact. In fact, I can name some of these areas that would be directly impacted. They are very important.

Natural Resources Canada has made a contribution under this money of almost $1.7 million to the Saskatchewan Power Corporation and the Maritime Electric Company. This is a program to develop green power electricity generation. These two areas have the most difficult time. This is one initiative that the government is sponsoring out of this year's budget. Opposing the estimates means that we would lose this program. Why would the Liberals be against the environment? That is the direct result.

Let me talk about one other area that not approving the estimates of Natural Resources Canada would have a direct impact on. It is the largest source of untapped energy in this country. It is larger than the oil sands. It is larger than renewable energies.

The largest source of energy we have yet to tap into is the energy we waste. Energy efficiency is very important to this government. We are working on initiatives right now that will benefit every single Canadian across this country.

My colleagues in the NDP apparently do not support energy efficiency. They would like to cut this funding. That is something the Conservatives do not believe in. We believe that it is important to fund these initiatives to help the Canadian people and that is what we are going to do.

We have taken a bold new approach to the environment. As I said earlier, the record of the members opposite was abysmal. Greenhouse gases skyrocketed to 35% under the Liberals' watch. They never reduced any pollutants. Smog days continued to increase right across this country. Now they pretend to be the great caretakers. In 13 years in office, they did nothing.

Our government's approach is different. We are doing things that will bring absolutely meaningful results to Canadians. We have introduced Canada's clean air act. Again, Natural Resources Canada is developing initiatives to support this act. This is the first time in Canadian history that any government has undertaken to regulate both greenhouse gases and pollutants for every single sector, from the mining sector to the oil and gas sector, the forestry sector and the auto sector. No government in the past has had the courage to do this.

This government is prepared to do it. This is something that we are working on. We are developing initiatives to do that. Unfortunately, this motion is about the funding to Natural Resources Canada. Not supporting this motion would have a direct result on these initiatives. There will be a direct result if we do not support the motion to ensure that this funding goes through.

I support our Minister of the Environment on her initiatives and on what she is doing. These are programs that would have a direct impact if we were not able to deliver--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Etobicoke North is rising on a point of order.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I presume the members who speak after the minister will have the same broad latitude, but I am concerned that the minister is confused. I think we are talking about a reduction of $250,000 in his estimates, while he is speaking about huge cuts to his departmental estimates

. Perhaps the minister is confused or has not read the motion. That is the only reason why I raise this point.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member is on the roster to speak a little later and might want to address this question then. In the meantime, we will wait for the end of the minister's speech. The minister has six minutes and 15 seconds remaining.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will clarify for the hon. member. The motion is for $256 million. This is for one-quarter of NRC's $256 million budget for grants and contributions. I appreciate that one of the members is specifically talking about $250,000.

This motion by the President of the Treasury Board is to approve the estimates for funding one-third of the grants and contributions for Natural Resources Canada. If the motion is not supported, the amount will be $64 million. The member may want to check his facts and ensure he has his numbers right. I appreciate that he wants to focus on one small part but by not supporting this motion he is voting against energy efficiency, renewable energy, wind energy, tidal power and science and technology projects that would clean up coal powered projects. By not supporting this motion the member would be voting against CO₂ sequestration.

These are initiatives that will have the greatest impact on reducing greenhouse gases. These are initiatives that will have the greatest impact on reducing the pollutants that we put in the atmosphere. That is why we on this side of the House feel so passionate about these very important initiatives. They are initiatives that we will continue to support.

As I said earlier, my hon. colleague, the Minister of the Environment, introduced a bold new approach to force Canadian industries, the polluters, to meet tough regulations. These regulations will be achievable. They are realistic but they are tough. We will enforce them, unlike the previous government that has a record that speaks for itself.

I appreciate the one issue that the member is talking about. Yes, a few members in the House would like to cut $250,000 in funding to the Chrysotile Institute. We spend that money to promote the safe use of chrysotile. Our government supports this institute and we will continue to do so because we believe it is in this country's interests. We have led on this file and we will continue to do so.

There is far more at stake by voting against this motion. By voting against this motion, the member would be voting against every initiative that we will be working on this year for the environment. I challenge the member to read the motion and ask himself how he could vote against these initiatives. He does not get to pick and choose as to which piece we fund. He would be voting against the funding for initiatives that are good for the environment.

I would challenge the member to be careful in what he says. This motion is not about one $250,000 program. This motion is about the most important work that we are doing at Natural Resources Canada to reduce greenhouse gases and pollutants. We will continue to do that. This is an area in which our government is committed

There are three fundamental ways in which we can have the greatest impact on the environment. We know that the energy we use is largely responsible for greenhouse gases and pollutants. The first way to have an impact on the environment is energy efficiency. As I said, the largest untapped source of energy is the energy we waste.

The second most important part is the use of technology. We must invest in technology like we never have before. We can use technology to remove 80% to 90% of the pollutants from coal-fired electricity generation. That technology is available today and we need to continue to advance that technology.

We can also use CO₂ sequestration to remove the greenhouse gases that have an impact on climate change. We can take those CO₂ gases that we sequester and put them back in the ground.

Those are the types of programs that we are funding and supporting. We are forming partnerships with provincial governments and with industry. We are working with the universities and the research institutes across the country. We are all working on this challenge together and we are delivering results. We are having a very positive impact. We will continue to promote that.

I want to make it crystal clear to all members of the House that if they vote against this motion they will be voting against renewable energy, energy efficiency and investing in science and technology to help us develop technologies to reduce greenhouse gases and pollutants. This is something that is very important to the government and we will continue to support it.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have three questions and I would like the minister to write them down and deal with each one.

My first question concerns the sequestering of carbon dioxide for the sake of cleaning up the environment. There are a lot of questions about that scientifically and I would like the minister to explain exactly how this will work, how it is technically feasible to do so and where he plans to invest in this in the particular oil sands. I do not think they are particularly happy given the income trust situation of late.

The second question has to do with the wind power production incentive, or the WPPI program. A company near my riding of Bonavista has told us that it is ready to invest a substantial amount of money. It is good for the environment and it good for the economy as well. What is the status of this program? We need to know where we stand right now because the company has told us, unequivocally, that if it does not get the subsidy that was there before then the whole project will fail.

The third question concerns the EnerGuide program, the resurrection of a program that works. In the last Parliament, the member from St. John's East complained in the House that the program was not being sped up. He liked the program. As a matter of fact, when we were in government he was complaining that the program was not doing what it should be doing because it was a great program.

It is now time for the minister to stand up and say whether the member was wrong. Why did the minister cut the EnerGuide program? Why is it that he does not believe in providing subsidies to low income households to heat their homes and, at the same time, improve on the environment. Why would he rather get advice from his friends, which, I would suggest, he is now getting? I would like for him to stand on his own.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did actually write the three questions down and I am happy to respond to all three.

On CO₂ sequestration, he is wondering if the technology is feasible and if the technology exists. I can inform the member that we are doing it right now. Federal tax dollars are supporting a demonstration project in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. The industry is partnering with the federal government to capture CO₂ gases and then pump them back down in the ground. A number of companies right now are looking at projects and specifically the oil sands that the member talked about. I do not want to start picking one company over the other. We are encouraging all of them and we want to be there to support them. The technology exists today and it is happening today but we need to push it even further ahead.

What benefit? Obviously the member is aware that we want to reduce the amount of CO ₂ going into the atmosphere because it has a direct impact on climate change.

The member asked about the wind. If he actually believes in the wind program, the old one that he talked about, the WPPI program, was fully subscribed. I would recommend that the member support this motion if he believes in renewable energy, in wind energy, in tidal energy, in solar energy and in biomass, because he might not like what he is voting against.

The government is committed to renewable energy and I would encourage him to support that.

The member talked about the old EnerGuide program. I have made it very clear in this House on a number of occasions that this program of 50¢ on every $1 was used in either doing audits or administration. We would like to see a far greater amount of taxpayer dollars going into initiatives that actually have a greater impact on the environment, which are the types of programs that this government is working on.