Reed Elley

[Supply, June 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, to begin with, I am surprised that this member heard my speech considering the fact that he carried on a fairly long, loud conversation with somebody else while I was speaking, which disturbed me greatly. Other than that, I will try to answer his question.

[Supply, June 15th, 2000]

Yes, they do not think we have a problem. The Minister of Health stood in the House today and said there was not a crisis. I was on a radio talk show not too long ago. That is not what Canadians are saying.

The government has been hypocritical in its actions with the Standing Committee on Health. Even past Liberals such as Tom Kent state that the Liberal government is the biggest threat to medicare in the country. In short, the Liberals have continually thrown roadblocks in front of every possible means of finding a positive solution to the greatest problem we currently face in Canada today. It is time to walk the talk, but talk is all we seem to get from the Liberal government on health care.

What can Canadians expect to receive from the Canadian Alliance when it becomes government? As my hon. colleague from Red Deer previously stated, health care has been on the back burner for far too long and must be moved to the front. It is the issue that concerns Canadians the most. It is the issue, contrary to Liberal rhetoric, on which Liberals have spent the least amount of constructive time, energy and financial resources.

The Liberal government has made every effort to destroy any possibility of a healthy, co-operative relationship between the federal and provincial governments in health care. If it were really concerned about co-operating with the provinces, it would have had a high level meeting between the Prime Minister and the premiers a long time ago.

Under the Canadian Alliance, Canadians expect two central themes, patient centred and results based health care. I believe that for far too long the patient has taken the backseat in health care, and yet the patient is supposedly the focal point of the entire system.

I believe we need to move beyond traditional thinking. We need to remember why we have a health care system. Is it to create newer technology? Is it to create jobs for health care professionals? Is it to create an industry for the drug companies? The simple answer is, no. The health care system should be centred on the patient first.

The second issue is one of a results based health care system running tandem with the centrality of patient care. If we started to zero in on both of those things in this country we could expect to have results and a better health care system than we have right now.

[Supply, June 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the official opposition supply day motion.

I would like to read the motion again. We are partway through the day on this debate and I think it is important that we have this kind of exchange in the House. It may be the only time we will get to talk about health care in this parliament. We certainly cannot talk about it in the health committee. The motion reads:

That this House recognize that the health care system in Canada is in crisis, the status quo is not an option, and the system that we have today is not sustainable; and, accordingly, that this House calls upon the government to develop a plan to modernize the Canadian health care system, and to work with the provinces to encourage positive co-operative relations.

Normally I am delighted to rise to bring the concerns of the constituents of my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, and indeed all Canadians, before the House of Commons. However, today I am saddened that we have to have this kind of debate.

Canadians know and cherish the health care system that we have in Canada. For many years we have had a “made in Canada” solution which ensures that all Canadians have access to quality health care. Generations of Canadians have grown up expecting that their loved ones, their families and they themselves will have adequate health care available to meet their needs.

Thanks to the Liberal government, Canadians no longer have this comfort. The cold reality is that the health care of yesterday has been destroyed by the Liberals of today and the system will not meet the health care requirements of tomorrow.

For a few moments I would like to describe the problems which I have seen resulting from the government's uncaring approach to health care over the last seven years.

In 1993 when the Liberals came to power the federal portion of the Canada health and social transfer was $18.8 billion. Within four short years the Liberals had slashed away over $6.3 billion annually. Today the transfers are still $3.3 billion lower than when the Liberals came to power in 1993.

In total they have stripped away $24.7 billion and, according to their budget plans, will continue this pattern with the removal of another $9.9 billion over the next three budget years. The total is an incredible $34.6 billion gouged out of Canada's health care system over a projected 11 years. That works out to $1,100 less in health care for every man, woman and child in Canada today.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what another $1,100 spent on health care for every person in your riding would do to alleviate the pain, the suffering and the discomfort which many Canadians feel?

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan there are approximately 100,000 people. That translates into $110 million missing from health care that should go to the people of my riding. That $110 million could have been used to hire more nurses, to maintain and reopen operating rooms. This is money that could have been used to ensure that more people were not subjected to longer than necessary waiting lists, and for the opportunity to purchase or upgrade new medical technology equipment.

There is not a region in this country that has not been negatively affected by the callous financial approach that the Liberal government has inflicted upon Canadians from coast to coast.

At the Cowichan District Hospital in Duncan a dialysis unit sat idle. The primary reason it sat idle, simply put, was because there was not enough money in the system to hire trained personnel to operate the equipment. I ask my hon. colleagues here today to imagine the sense of concern that runs through a parent's heart when their child requires a dialysis machine to live and yet the equipment in the local hospital has never been used because of the lack of funding by the federal government.

I know what that feeling is. My daughter is one of those who may have required dialysis, and yet, even though the dialysis unit was only 15 minutes from our home, the stark reality was that if her one remaining kidney had shut down we were over one hour away from the nearest dialysis unit, and that was not always available to children.

It costs approximately $630,000 to purchase a dialysis unit. The annual operating costs for 36 patients totals approximately $1 million. Can we imagine if a portion of the $110 million the Liberals have ripped out of the system in my riding alone over the last seven years could have been used for dialysis in the Cowichan District Hospital? Can we imagine the sense of relief a parent or patient feels when a unit is finally opened and put into operation? Unfortunately this unit is already approaching capacity and it is expected that in less than one year new dialysis patients will once again be required to make the one hour trip to Victoria for dialysis treatment.

Here is another situation. In 1991 in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan Mr. Pat Carson donated $861,000 for the purchase of a CT scanner. Unfortunately Mr. Carson's wife had died of cancer. While there are no guarantees it was thought that earlier treatment for her could have been initiated through a faster diagnosis by way of a CT scan.

I know hon. members are wondering how the scanner is working and if it has indeed saved lives. I am sad to say that the scanner has never been purchased. The money has now accumulated to over $1.3 million and will continue to grow until the operating budget is put in place that can operate this equipment.

What budget is needed? All that is needed is approximately $500,000 annually. On behalf of the constituents of Nanaimo—Cowichan I can easily imagine $500,000 could be found in the $110 million the Liberal government has taken out of health care for my riding alone over the last seven years.

If these were the only stories then the story of health care in Canada today would not be such a sad tale of woe. Unfortunately this is only one of thousands of stories across the nation. Through the rest of today as we speak to this most important subject the House will hear of surgery waiting lists, cancelled surgeries, long waiting periods to see specialists, pain, suffering, and unfortunately even death.

In my home province of British Columbia we have had patients lying on gurneys in the hallways and in the linen closets of local hospitals. Cancelled surgeries at the hospitals in my riding in Nanaimo—Cowichan are a daily occurrence. We have done better in the past but we must do better than this in the future.

The track record of the Liberal government speaks loud and clear. On the occasions when I have raised at the Standing Committee on Health the issue of studying the overall system of health care in Canada unfortunately the Liberal majority said no. During the discussion at the agenda planning subcommittee one day one Liberal member actually had the audacity to state that health care was too big a topic for the committee to study.

Can members imagine that? Canadian health care was too big for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health to study. If the Standing Committee on Health cannot study health, may I ask who should study health?

Earlier this month the Canadian Institute for Health Information released a report which stated that the number of health professionals from 1988 to 1997 did not keep pace with Canada's population growth, resulting in fewer health professionals per capita in 1997. Over that 10 year period the number of professionals per 10,000 population declined by 1.7%, from 185 to 182. Based on these numbers today we are short 9,000 health professionals in the country.

I further ask hon. members to consider our aging population. According to Statistics Canada the demographics of Canada for 2001 will have 13% of our population aged 65 or older. By 2026, just a few years down the road, this same age group will rise to 21% of our overall population. In real numbers this is a rise from 3,945,000 to 7,759,000, almost a complete doubling of this age group.

I remind hon. members that with a few exceptions it will probably include all of us here. It includes our peers, our personal friends, our neighbours and many family members. If we really want a universal health care system when we reach age 65, we must do something to heal the hurting health system right now.

Currently the Canadian Medical Association has noted with concern that the number of doctors leaving Canada is roughly equivalent to the graduating classes of six medical schools per year. That amounts to almost 40% of our medical school graduates. It now takes half the output of all Canadian medical schools to replace the physicians who leave the country annually.

One reason is simply the high cost of medical education. The president of the CMA asserts that the debt of a graduating medical student can rise as high as a $140,000. Other reasons given by the former director of research at the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges of Canada are health care cuts and plunging morale.

Here are some other facts. Some 731 doctors left the country in 1996 and 659 in 1997, for a total of 1,390 doctors in just two years. Doctors moving south of the border represent one-quarter of all medical personnel leaving the country every year. Most of those leaving are nurses. A 1997 study of 489 orthopedic surgeons graduating between 1985 and 1994 show that one-quarter had moved to the U.S. and 70% of the rest were considering it. The most common reasons were restrictions on operating time, unavailability of beds and other frustrations with practice restrictions.

CMA has also stated that there is a severe shortage of high tech physicians capable of reading the results of the latest findings in medical technology. There is currently a shortfall of 150 full time radiologists in Canada with an expected shortfall of 500 over the next four years.

Let us not forget that it takes a great deal of time to train the doctors and nurses we need in Canada. Regular training for a general practitioner is at least seven years and specialist training takes thirteen or fourteen years. We are short of trained staff now, not in seven to thirteen years. A crisis looms on the horizon. Yet the government remains intent upon destroying rather than renewing our stressed health care system.

The Liberal government has attempted to make the claim that it is the only party willing to support the five tenets of the Canada Health Act. That is just not true. The 1997 red book stated the Liberals' commitment to:

—the five fundamental principles of our medicare system, and on our commitment to the continuing role, in financing and other aspects, of the federal government in health care.

If that is indeed what the Liberals meant in 1997, why have they misled the Canadian public? How far is that from the reality of today when the government is truly the architect of the demise of the Canada Health Act?

Across the country there are examples of abuses of the Canada Health Act. In my province of British Columbia where the NDP government reigns supreme the workers' compensation board is allowed by the Canada Health Act, and supported by the government, to send its patients with knee problems to a private clinic either in the United States or the province of Alberta. To me that is queue jumping. To me that violates the whole principle of universality. The government ought to do something about that if it is indeed the protector of the Canada Health Act.

People who need MRIs should be careful. There may be a three or four month line-up, or perhaps they can pay $800 cash at a private clinic and avoid the line-up. If they do not like the waiting time involved, they can take their credit cards and head south of the border. Many Canadian doctors and nurses are there already. When they get there, there will perhaps be a reunion of friends they have not seen for a while.

Who then is responsible for the two tier system in Canada today? It is not this side of the House. It is the other side of the House. Has the Liberal government attempted to resolve these issues? The simple answer is no. Rather than working with the provinces and attempting to ensure that all Canadians have quality health care, the Prime Minister and Minister of Health prefer to antagonize, to cause dissension and not to build unity.

In a press release yesterday and in an article in the Ottawa Citizen the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Romanow, is quoted as saying that he has been pushing the federal government for several months to create a national inquiry but was turned down. I am not surprised. I was turned down in the health committee over the last two and a half years. Why should it give me that privilege when it will not even give it to the Premier of Saskatchewan?

Canadians are starting to see past the Liberal smoke and mirror show when it comes to health. I think they are getting tired of it. Canadians are now starting to turn to other people, to other groups in the country and to other levels of government to try to right the wrongs the Liberal government has forced upon them. Corrective actions cannot be implemented immediately, but they could begin immediately if there were some kind of consensus building shown by the leadership of the government to do something about the most important problem for Canadians today.

My colleagues and I recognize that money alone is not the whole solution. We cannot deny that many of the problems were caused by the significant reduction in funding that the Liberal government has slashed from health care. What a drop it has been from 1996 when it committed to a 50:50 split to now when approximately 11% of health care dollars going into the system come from the Liberal government.

Many of the solutions will require funding. Yes, further efficiencies can be found in the system. Certainly we need more trained professionals. Indeed we face challenges that we have not even previously encountered. Yes, we have an aging population. Yes, the delivery of health care services remains a provincial responsibility.

What positive role has the federal government put forward? Can we name one thing it has done? To date it has been nothing. It has been irresponsible in its lack of solutions to the health care crisis we now face in Canada. It has been inconsistent in the enforcement of the Canada Health Act.

[Human Resources Development, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, nobody knew about it. In her news release the HRDC minister said that there would be a new structure for future social and labour market research. It will be modelled on the practices used at Statistics Canada and be based on input by officials from that department.

With its abysmal track record on data gathering, why does HRDC not simply get out of the market policy research business and leave it to the experts at Statistics Canada?

[Human Resources Development, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's department has said that the privacy commissioner will monitor the dismantling of its big brother database. This is an extremely important step given that the existence of such a database was kept secret from the privacy commissioner for years.

Canadians deserve to know what specific powers the privacy commissioner will be given to ensure that HRDC's newest action plan is really implemented.

[Health, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me get a bit more specific here. These are very serious problems.

In one case close to my own riding, the Tsartlip Band could not account for 63% of its total health contributions of $177,000. Financial report conditions were not complied with. No monthly reports were submitted. On March 28 officials were to meet with the Tsartlip Band and discuss options for recovery of these missing funds.

The Tsartlip people, indeed all Canadians, simply want to know how the Minister of Health will get this money back.

[Health, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the government's spending practices are completely out of control. We have seen a lack of accountability in HRDC, EDC, Indian Affairs and Northern Development and now in Health Canada.

In the most recent Health Canada audit of the Indian and Inuit health contributions, it appears that $22 million has gone missing.

At a time when people on reserves are suffering through some of the worst health conditions in Canada, will the Minister of Health simply tell us where the money has gone?

[Government Of Canada, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I live on beautiful Vancouver Island and I am proud to be part of a wonderful country that stretches from sea to sea. I am Canadian but I also live in the highest taxed nation in the world. Like many fellow citizens I shake my head in disgust at how the government many times spends my money.

I believe deeply in the family as the cornerstone of a strong nation but watch in dismay as the Liberal government seems to try to destroy it.

I appreciate the freedom to worship in my church each Sunday but have grave concerns about a growing intolerance on the part of government and its bureaucracy for Judeo-Christian beliefs.

I have eight children but wonder about their future in a country where the Prime Minister does not even recognize the brain drain and does little to foster a business friendly environment, the ultimate creator of jobs.

After this past weekend I am increasingly thankful that I am a proud member of the Canadian Alliance which offers the only hope for the country in the 21st century. I am Canadian.

[Health, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, according to reports today the health minister will be hiring additional health spies to ensure that the provinces adhere to the Canada Health Act. The premiers and provincial health ministers have been crying out for communication and federal-provincial co-operation.

How can the Liberal government expect to improve relations with the provinces when it trusts them so little that it has to hire more health spies?

[Employment Insurance, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in the debate on Motion No. 222 which reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to restore employment insurance benefits to seasonal workers.

I note that there has been an amendment by the Liberal member for Miramichi and a further subamendment by the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.

In beginning my participation in the debate, I wish to assure hon. members present that although seasonal workers are often referred to in speeches on the east coast, I am very familiar with the impact of seasonal employment. My own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan has its share of seasonal workers. These workers are primarily found in three different occupations: fishing, tourism and, although members may not believe it, in forestry today.

As we all know, the fishing industry has been particularly hard hit on both the east and west coasts. Declining fish stocks brought about by poor management, changing water temperatures, cyclical changes and other factors all resulted in a loss of jobs for fishermen and the support industries.

The forest industry actually is no different. Due to the poorly drafted softwood lumber agreement, the crash in the Japanese economy, the glut of newsprint on the worldwide market and the slowdown in the number of housing starts all across Canada, many forestry workers are faced with seasonal work rather than the level of full time employment that they once enjoyed.

Tourism is fast becoming the number one source of new jobs in Canada today. Indeed, tourism is truly seasonal employment. Many cities and towns are doing what they can to build upon and expand the resources that they have in their communities, all in an effort to draw tourists.

I have previously spoken in the House about my own home town of Chemainus, the little town that did, and the enormous number of tourists that arrive every year between May and October, about 400,000 of them. The Nanaimo Dive Association is about to sink a second artificial reef just outside the harbour. Why would they do that, one may ask. It is simply because the first artificial reef has attracted thousands of divers every year since it was sunk.

Why do I talk about these three industries today? I know that seasonal workers are found in each one of these industries. I also know that each one of our ridings has its share of seasonal workers. Whether they dig potatoes in the Fraser Valley, pick peaches in the Okanagan Valley, custom seed or combine across the Prairies, work in summer camps or vacation lodges in Ontario and Quebec or are part of the tourism trade in the maritimes, each one of our ridings is certainly affected by seasonal workers. This is a very real problem and one that each of us should take very seriously.

We may have different solutions however. Most of us can agree that there are problems within the system. It appears to me that one of the problem areas is the so-called intensity rule. As hon. members will know, the intensity rule was introduced in the 1995 Employment Insurance Act and distinguishes between frequent and infrequent recipients of EI benefits. Those who are frequent users of EI have their benefits reduced. While the intention appears to have been to discourage the frequent use of EI, I do not believe that the intensity rule has really worked in this manner. On this issue I do agree with the government amendment that there is a need to review employment insurance benefits for seasonal workers.

Unfortunately the limits of time in this debate are not sufficient to adequately address nor seek solutions to the problems that are part of the 1995 Employment Insurance Act. Systemic problems require more than a cursory debate in order to be resolved. While I see a need to review and address the problems within the EI system, I believe that the wording of the original motion will not solve any of the real problems. Rather, it will perpetuate them.

In resolving the inadequacies of the EI system there are a multitude of issues that must be researched and resolved, issues such as how businesses are using or abusing the EI system, the rates of benefits for frequent and infrequent users, as well as the premiums for businesses that are frequent and infrequent employers of seasonal workers.

I note that the 1998 EI monitoring and assessment report produced by the Department of Human Resources Development acknowledges that communities with high levels of seasonal employment were more likely to have industries that showed declining benefit levels. The concern I have regarding this is that the data used in writing the report would appear to have been gathered in the time immediately following the implementation of the revised 1995 EI act. I would question what has changed since that time. Is the data all relevant? Do the assumptions and conclusions in that report remain true today?

The government clearly hoped that with the implementation of the intensity rule the workers would have an incentive to move out of seasonal industries and regions. I question whether the rationale of seasonal workers receiving lower benefits has moved anyone out of seasonal work altogether. While some may have moved out of seasonal work, no doubt there are others who have moved in simply to take their place.

Why has the implementation of the intensity rule not changed the number of seasonal workers? Simply put, most seasonal workers state that they have few employment options outside their current seasonal jobs. According to the 1998 monitoring report, the intensity rule did not appear to be an incentive to look for non-seasonal work.

As part of an intensive review of EI legislation we must begin by looking at what was the original intent of employment insurance. If employment insurance was intended to protect workers against the risk of temporary, involuntary unemployment, we must ask ourselves whether the program is working. If it is not working, what are the options to fix the system? Should companies that hire primarily seasonal workers be assessed higher premiums? Does this place an unfair burden on some businesses but not on others?

With regard to seasonal workers, is it not a matter of risk that they will be unemployed? They already know that when they begin. Seasonal work clearly has different factors affecting it than full time work. Some of those factors may be due to the size of the crop or the length of the season.

Let us be clear in this debate. I believe that Motion No. 222, as originally struck, may prove to stifle any efforts to find real solutions in the debate over seasonal EI recipients.

There are markets that are and will remain seasonal and they should not be unduly penalized. There are other markets that would appear to be taking advantage of the current legislation and, of course, this is not right either.

Employment insurance should not be used as a wage subsidy program. I understand that the original role of the EI program was to be protection against involuntary and temporary job loss. There is no question that the EI program has assisted many individuals and families and this should not be overlooked.

As part of this debate we must note that there are other factors to contend with. The use of excessive EI premiums by the government to fill the finance department coffers is inappropriate. I must wonder, if the premiums were not excessive and the money left in the pockets of the businesses, could the businesses better afford to hire additional workers? If this were the case, would some of the seasonal workers actually have the opportunity to become full time employees?

I strongly believe that money left in the pockets of the businesses and workers of this country is the wisest investment that government could ever make. Canadians are wise people and know when they are being taken advantage of. Currently they know they are being overtaxed. Businesses and individuals alike are not prepared to work under a prohibitive taxation structure. The flaws that we have before us will not be resolved by this one motion, but it could be a starting place if we can look at it systemically and not just in isolation.

I thank the hon. member for his motion and for the opportunity to take part in this important debate today.