Bob Mills

[Health, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's platitudes may console his colleagues but they do little for the families waiting for heart surgery.

This government's track record is why thousands of Canadians have waited months for elective surgery. For every year that this government has been in power, it has chosen to increase the spending for grants and contributions rather than health care. Every single year the government's choice of treating cancer patients on one hand or buying votes on the other is what it is always talking about.

Why does the government choose giving cash to its friends rather than giving health care to Canadians?

[Health Care, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government obviously believes its own propaganda. Day after day it continues to give us glib answers bordering on arrogance. Today in Markham the provincial ministers are on the receiving end of the same tactics.

How can the government sit here and say it cares about health care when the health minister has gone to the meeting with absolutely no intention of bargaining in good faith?

[Health Care, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the additional money given to HRDC this year was $1.5 billion. In the same year the same amount was given to the health care system. While Canadians have consistently ranked health care as their number one priority, the government's number one priority obviously is its patronage department.

When will the government get its priorities straight?

[Health, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot even get our name right.

The health minister claims that there is no money for the ailing health care system. Perhaps he should talk to the finance minister who says there is money if the provinces submit to Liberal harassment.

We have a mismanaged HRDC department. We have a health care system in shambles. What does the government do? It places a gun to the heads of the provinces.

Why does the health minister not simply go to the HRDC minister and ask for a grant?

[Health, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Minister of Health committed a drive-by smearing in Alberta. Now the Prime Minister is retaliating against Ontario with a propaganda campaign.

How could the government be so arrogant to say it wants solutions for health care when it keeps picking fights with the provinces?

[Health Care, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express my support for the initiative the Mike Harris government is showing in outlining the funding cuts to health care in Ontario.

The Prime Minister seems to be a little confused on how to approach the issue of health care. Two weeks ago he sent the health minister to Alberta to chastise the province. Seven days later the Prime Minister himself arrived to smooth things over. The next thing we know, the Prime Minister is blasting Ontario for bringing to light the federal government's serious lack of commitment in funding for health care.

Is this Liberal leadership? The health ministers will gather tomorrow to co-operate in an effort to bring viable solutions to the table.

I am a little uncertain how challenging Ontario will encourage the other provinces to approach the table with anything other than trepidation. The provinces have been placed in an impossible situation. Their pleas have so far fallen on deaf ears. This government has accused Ontario of playing politics instead of solving the problems. The Liberals should talk.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if we worked on it a bit, we could come up with an awful lot of burnt out projects like the ones that have been started, where the building was built, the funding stopped and the project collapsed.

That comes from a lack of long term planning. That is one of the reasons Canadians have so little confidence in government. Whether it is building ferries that do not float, whether it is nuclear projects or whether it is the Avro Arrow, if we want to go back in history, there all kinds of examples of where the Canadian government has not continued its funding long enough to reap the rewards. Again the member is totally right. It is a major concern.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very real concern. Obviously, when we went into the whole medicare issue and the Canada Health Act, the agreement was that the federal government would provide 50% of the funding. For that it got control, making sure that the provinces lived by the Canada Health Act. That was a good deal for everyone. The provinces received financial assistance and Canadians got a health care system of which they could be proud.

The problem is that the federal government is now giving 13% to Alberta instead of 50%. Some other provinces are getting slightly more if other figures are taken into consideration. The important thing that also needs to be mentioned is that the $580 billion debt on which we pay some $40 billion a year in interest payments is also a very major factor in cutting funding for health care and for many other projects. Let us think of what we could do with $40 billion in any one of these programs, or even part of it.

It is fine to say we will start the program and fund it for the next three years but, as the member pointed out, if they drop out after that, research will stop, those scientists will be lost to us forever and we will not attract any kind of research in this country. That will put us even deeper into the hole and we will go from 23rd out of 29 to who knows where.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let us go through the numbers and we can round them off if the member would like.

In 1993-94 the money transferred for health care and education amounted to $18.8 billion. In 1994-95, $18.7 billion; 1995-96, $18.5 billion; 1996-97, $14.8 billion; 1997-98, $12.5 billion; 1998-99, $12.5 billion; 1999-2000, $14.5 billion; and now for the next four years, $15.5 billion. If we went back to the level and kept it frozen at $18.8 billion from 1993 to the year 2004, the total would be $36 billion less than what would have been transferred had the government just frozen it at the 1993 level.

That is very simple mathematics but obviously Liberal mathematics is quite different from pure numbers. Those are the facts and for whatever reason the Liberals do not want to recognize them.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his question. He has raised several important points, the first one being the need for long term funding.

It is essential that when doing research one is not inhibited by grants that are there for one year and may not be there for the next year. Research is not an exact process and one needs to know there is sustainable funding in the research area. I think that applies here more than anywhere else.

Researchers do not know when they will find a cure for whatever it is they are looking for. To know they have the support and the long term commitment of parliament is critical. I think that should be written in. It is something that can be strengthened in this bill.

Another item of equal importance is the administration of research. More important, we should get to the nuts and bolts and say that the provinces are partners in this research. All the provinces are working with the federal government to provide research for all Canadians. This is why I emphasize the lack of partisan politics in this regard.

It is to be hoped that the administration will not fall victim to the things we have seen in HRDC and many other areas, because that will do more to hurt us as Canadians and to hurt our position. When we are 23rd out of 29 OECD countries, it is not a very favourable position to be in terms of our technological advancements. We need to improve dramatically. Co-operation in this whole area will be critical for it to be successful.