The hon. member says scrap it. We do not agree with that.
We need the highest quality of health care for all Canadians while not increasing the pressures of finances on the public. If we look at where many people come from today, the health care system in communities is an ever increasing cost. The disappointing part is the federal government has not increased its costs. It has
actually decreased its expenditures toward the health care system over the years, thereby putting pressure on the provinces to come up with more and more money.
I have had occasion in the province of British Columbia to work in one of the municipal organizations. I know full well what rising costs are due to in part. Labour negotiations, for instance, over the years have produced increases that are extraordinarily high. Communities had difficulty trying to pay as the costs of labour increased. We know the cost of equipment in hospitals is high and necessarily so, because it has to be state of the art.
On top of all this we have a government saying that we must have universal health care which it relates to medicare. I will talk about the differences in a moment. The government wants it to be universal but is not prepared to pay 50 per cent or a higher percentage than it is today. It has been ever decreasing.
Many people are not happy with the health care system. They have to wait in line for operations, and services are ever decreasing. There are bed shortages, not enough nurses at times and so on.
I have been attending the Royal Columbian Hospital in Vancouver where my niece has been in neurosurgery for the last nine weeks. She was in a very serious car accident. I must say that I have been totally impressed with the health care system in that regard.
I am sure many people have gone through hospitals, have spoken to doctors and have been completely impressed. However, the fact remains that the services are decreasing. I see it when I visit the hospital. There are not as many nurses as we would like to see on staff and so on. The demands and the expectations which people have for health care today are perhaps more than what the provinces can afford. Therein lies a good part of the battle.
Some myths have been promoted across the country. I believe they are more political myths than reality. We hear from the other side that Canada's health care system is the best in the world and that any changes would be detrimental. I do not subscribe to that thesis. The fact is that the health care system in Canada is very good. I cannot from my experience determine whether it is the best in the world, but I am sure it is very high up there.
The Liberals are saying that any changes would be detrimental. I disagree with that. In this day and age what is truly required, because of the costs and the limitations on the resources, is a core set of services that would be provided throughout Canada on a cost shared basis. It could be called a core medical service. Over and above that, we have to allow the provinces to innovate and provide other services. That only stands to reason unless the federal government is prepared to provide more funding into its shared responsibility.
The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say: "The rules are going to go our way, but we are not going to give you enough money to operate". It is unrealistic to think that way.
If you are looking for changes in health care, we have offered a program for change with a core medical service. Organizations such as the Canadian College of Health Service Executives are coming to the conclusion that there has to be some kind of core service. Trying to provide all things to all people within a very limited finite budget will not work.
Some myths about health care are attached to this party. They are political myths. I can understand when we are campaigning or when we are debating in the House that statements are made to promote one side or the other. Some of the myths are that the Reform Party will dismantle medicare; that it wants a U.S. style of medical system; the Reform Party is in favour of a cash register medical system; it favours private insurance; it is in cahoots with insurance companies; it is a proponent of a two-tier health care system.
The fact is that the Reform Party is a lot more realistic than the government. Unless the government is prepared to look at the funding it provides to the provinces, I do not see how the provinces can expect to live by the standards which have been set by the federal government. It is not realistic.
The biggest burden of cost is on the provinces. The government cannot stand by and promote such things as block funding without eventually finding out what the problems are. I have had a lot of experience with block funding. It is just another way of saying: "You have the same amount of money. You can spend it on whatever you like. If you want more money for health care you can spend the bulk of it but that will take away from welfare transfer payments or post-secondary education". It is still the same amount of money. The government has not really resolved anything other than to change the name and provide the money which has been decreasing over the years.
We have to define medicare today. I do not believe medicare and health care are necessarily synonymous. Medicare to me is a comprehensive set of core national health standards, publicly funded, portable across Canada and universally accessible to all. Canadians regardless of ability to pay should be able to use and access the health care system.
If we get to defining the problem we will be better off. However, if the Liberal government merely says: "The rules are this and we are only going to give you a finite set of dollars to live within", the provinces are not going to take that any more. That is what the debate is on constantly in this House.
We have to remove-
