Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take the opportunity to revisit my question about health care spending in the budget. We are all well aware that this is an issue that is constantly ranked as very important to most Canadians.
It is also well known that the funding formula for the Canada health transfer is an ongoing concern for the provinces that, for the most part, deliver health care. The role of the federal government has traditionally been to provide leadership to foster uniformity in the service that is experienced by Canadians.
Recently, there has been an increasingly obvious difference between Canada's provincial health care systems. We also know that the experiences of rural communities and northern communities are quite different than what is happening in the rest of Canada. Furthermore, the gap between health care provided to first nation Canadians and that provided to everyone else is also growing.
Federal leadership is required now more than ever to ensure Canadians have access to quality health care across the country. These are facts that frame this debate. Yet, when I asked the minister about downloading more of the costs for delivering health care on the provinces and the plan to limit the Canada health transfer in the near future, I received a response that relied on a single talking point, stretched to unbelievable lengths. It was that this budget contained record amounts of health care spending. This answer dismissed the meat of the issue and the fact that the provinces were not happy with health care funding in the budget.
The minister also brushed aside my reminder that the Conservatives had promised they would not touch health transfers.
It is clear the government missed an opportunity to strengthen health care.
The bigger concern seems to have been getting the right talking point when it should have been finding a way to stabilize and improve health care delivery, which is inseparable from funding.
Canada is changing and stability for the Canada health transfer would help the provinces and allow them to develop longer-term plans. As our population both grows and ages, we need to ensure our public health care system is able to match these trends. When one considers regional challenges and persistent challenges, such as the struggle for many to find a family doctor, it is clear that this is no time to rest on our laurels.
Yet, when we raise the concerns of the provinces in question period, the government tells us it has allocated record amounts, which actually turn out to be incremental increases that leave the provinces struggling to maintain services and, in some cases, are forcing cuts that are felt at the very front line.
Worse yet, the plan to tie the transfer to GDP-based averaging means the shortfalls would become more acute.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us that the federal share of Canada health transfer will decrease to the point that the provinces will be short-changed by $31 billion in just 12 years. The problem then becomes one that it is shouldered increasingly by the provinces. As the money transferred to provinces shrinks, the leadership role and authority of the federal government to ensure a certain level of service for most Canadians shrinks with it. In places like rural northern Ontario the prospect of simple things like providing enough family doctors becomes less certain despite promises to reverse this trend.
Given the opinion and experience of the provinces as well as the overwhelming desires of Canadians, surely the better option for the government is to commit to a funding formula that, at a bare minimum, maintains service.
Is it not time to reconsider the plan for GDP averaging for the Canada health transfer and commit to stable funding that protects health care?