Lost his last election, in 2004, with 37% of the vote.
Supply May 2nd, 1995
Madam Speaker, I have a specific question on health.
Before we had national medicare there were not the five principles for it. Now we have them following the federal-provincial negotiations of the past.
Does the member agree with the preservation of universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public non-profit administration of our health care system, and the absence of user fees and extra billing?
Supply May 2nd, 1995
Madam Speaker, the official opposition motion before us, with all respect, distorts the intent of the federal government's position as it relates to the Canada health and social transfer program.
It has been known from the beginning from the proclamations of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Human Resources Development that this new program, the details of which will be negotiated with the provinces, is aimed at giving provinces more flexibility to deliver on areas of exclusive jurisdiction, in the areas of health, post-secondary education and social assistance.
The government has said it does not mean a free for all. What the Bloc fails to recognize is that three out of every four Canadians, according to a poll last year, said they like national social programs.
When we speak of national social programs they have to be national in scope. If they are national in scope, it follows the national government has to have a say.
The new program is also aimed at ensuring all provincial governments acknowledge and affirm the importance of treating all Canadians equitably, of ensuring citizens from coast to coast have equal opportunity of access to the same standard of living, to the same opportunities in education for youth, to the same levels of support for the poor, to the same quality of care in health for the sick.
The new federal transfer program clearly recognizes the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces. What the Bloc has failed to recognize and refuses altogether to acknowledge is the unity and equality of all Canada's citizens.
The new program is not about imposing new standards and is not an arbitrary one. It is about affirming our national commitment to the five principles of medicare to which all Canadians subscribe. We know that. It is about reaffirming our national commitment to give our youth the best type of education and training. It is about reaffirming our national commitment to assisting the poor who have become under privileged beyond their control wherever they come from.
Do the member and his party want one class of poor in one province and another class of poor in other provinces? Do the member and his party want one class of education for the rich and one for the poor? Do the member and his party want medicare to be destroyed? Perhaps the ultimate question is do the member and his party not want one Canada for all?
Lobbyists Registration Act May 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, how can the member say he has faith in the ethics counsellor at the same time as he says the person could be manipulated and his report may not be believed because he has been appointed to that office? How can we believe the member has complete faith in the person when at the same time he would say that the person can be manipulated?
Lobbyists Registration Act May 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the conclusion in his comments was that anything via the appointment process is inherently bad and that anything by election is inherently good. Otherwise he would not have made a comment.
Sad as it may be, even some elected members of Parliament have been corrupt in the past so an election is no guarantee. We need citizens who will serve the country with integrity.
The justices of the Supreme Court have been appointed to office but have retained their independence. The independence of an official is not related to the process; it is related to the soul of the individual. If the member were to be appointed by the government to an office in the future, he would think just as independently as anyone would.
The appointment process does not in any way take away from the true independence of the appointed Canadian citizen. I have faith in our citizenry.
Also in the bill is the area of public scrutiny, scrutiny by the highest court of the land, by the House, when allegations can be substantiated to show the disappearance of independence on the part of the appointee. Then members of Parliament have an obligation to point it out to the Canadian public.
I am not afraid of the appointment process. I would like my colleagues to have more faith in our officials. Appointment as a
process is not the only answer. We need officials with the highest level of integrity. I am convinced the government with its bill and commitment to keep its promises has already shown the Canadian public it is serious about integrity. I would like my colleague to have faith in us.
Lobbyists Registration Act May 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in support of Bill C-43, as amended.
The Lobbyists Registration Act is one more initiative of the government to help ensure honesty and integrity in the politics of governance, a key plank in the Liberal platform as laid out in our red book. I am glad to note that members opposite have also found this book to be a valuable reference.
At this juncture allow me to congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on Industry, under the able leadership of its chairman, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, for its excellent and timely report, appropriately entitled "Rebuilding Trust".
It was my privilege to have contributed in some small measure to the deliberations of this committee. It was evident then, and my initial impression has since been reinforced by the report, that the committee, composed of members from all political parties, would leave no stone unturned in its effort to report a bill that would ensure that present and future governments will remain honest, open, and accountable. Citizens expect no less.
I indicated earlier that the report's title, "Rebuilding Trust", is most appropriate and timely. Until the last federal election there was an unprecedented level of public cynicism about our national institutions and the political process, about Parliament itself. Citizens saw their system eroded, serving the servants and not the public. That is why integrity in government was a major Liberal platform in 1993.
Keeping his promise, the Prime Minister restated in leading the debate in this House on Bill C-43 that his highest priority was restoring Canadians' faith in their institutions. He reasoned that cynicism ultimately undermines the proper functioning of Canada, eroding our national resolve to work for a better nation. The Prime Minister with these remarks was acknowledging the central role public trust plays in the success of any government, and we all share in this.
Canadians will recall that early in the mandate of this government the EH helicopter contract was cancelled at once, as promised. A $6 billion national infrastructure works program, in concert with the provinces and municipalities, was immediately put in place, as promised. The preceding and the last budgets are on track to reduce Canada's deficit to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product, as promised. Overfishing by foreign fleets, which threatened our already scarce domestic stocks, has been stopped, as promised.
Last but not least, a new Canada health and social transfer program to govern future provincial-federal transfers has been announced to ensure the preservation and strengthening of medicare, as promised.
We have shown Canadians that integrity cannot be preserved simply by paying it lip service. It must take the form of clear, decisive action. Integrity must become a way of public service, a habit of the heart on the part of any government. The Liberal government since assuming office has sent out a strong and clear message that the integrity of our country's institutions is not for sale.
The government and Parliament will serve all Canadians. Bill C-43 is one more indisputable proof of that resolve on the part of this government.
How will Bill C-43 restore and reaffirm public trust in the integrity of our national institutions? There are several ways. By appointing an ethics counsellor, by empowering the ethics counsellor to develop a code of conduct for lobbyists, and by ensuring that lobbyists will have a legal obligation to comply with the code, we can assure Canadians of integrity in our national institutions and therefore regain their trust.
By insisting that a code of conduct will have to be reviewed by a parliamentary committee before it comes into full effect, we can ensure that all political perspectives will have input into the substance of the code. By requiring that the ethics counsellor must investigate breaches of the code and submit a detailed report of each investigation to Parliament, we can ensure there will not be a whitewash. By ensuring that the ethics counsellor reports to Parliament annually, we can ensure there will be ongoing vigilance.
Some members opposite have argued that the code of conduct as proposed is not a regulatory text and not enforceable in law. There is a far greater document than law. Codes of conduct of various professional societies and trades have proven to be effective tools in ensuring exemplary conduct on the part of their members. I am confident that elected officials will rise to the challenge called for by the new code of conduct.
Some members opposite have also argued that appointment of the ethics counsellor by the governor in council is not too independent a process. I remind the members opposite have far greater faith in the integrity of our citizens, in the integrity of our appointees, in the integrity of our officials who assume office through the appointment process. One classic example is that of our judiciary system. Our Supreme Court is one such shining example.
The process of assuming office is not as critical as the integrity of the people who have assumed office. Let us not prejudge the integrity of our ethics counsellor.
Other colleagues from the government side have already spoken on the many other positive aspects of Bill C-43, includ-
ing the area of disclosure. There will be disclosure of fees and disclosure of government funding for associations.
Allow me to recall once more for my colleagues opposite and for all colleagues in the House that we have gone a long way since 1993 in terms of the rebuilding of public trust. The mood of Canadians has greatly changed, from cynicism in 1993 to optimism today.
The Canadian people have placed their trust in the Liberal government. I am honoured to serve with the government. Not only has it restored economic life, not only has it reduced the federal deficit, not only has it created jobs, not only has it restored public institutions and infrastructures, this government has also restored integrity in governance.
Integrity is once again a way of public service, and we have all benefited from this change. Parliament is the highest court in the land where the voices of Canadians, rich and poor, men and women, young and old, are heard and given equal strength.
It is said that members of Parliament should reflect the fears and hopes of their constituents today and in the future. I agree and we agree. I also say that we must reflect the hopes of our constituents of yesterday whose time honoured values include integrity, which continues to guide decisions we make today.
I am delighted to support Bill C-43 which marks the dawn of a renewed era in Canadian politics, integrity in governance, and thereby restore the nobility of our chosen profession in the House.
Health Care April 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Reform Party argued in the House that medicare should be partly privatized, allowing user fees.
This calls into question the credibility of its leader who, during the last election, said: "I want to make it absolutely clear that the Reform Party is not promoting private health care, deductibles or user fees".
Canadians are aware of the need to make medicare more efficient, but we cannot surrender its five principles. The challenge is to balance fiscal responsibility with the preservation of medicare, implementing more effective alternative treatment approaches while containing costs.
User fees, like a zombie, should not be resurrected. We cannot have one standard of health for the rich and another for the poor. We cannot allow the Reform Party to drive a stake through the heart of medicare. Instead, let us work together to strengthen, not destroy it. Medicare shall remain the crown jewel of our social programs, reflecting the soul of our nation.
Supply April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comment and question. Before I entered Parliament in 1988, I presented a paper in Australia at the International Congress on Cystic Fibrosis. My paper was about home care treatment of patients with cystic fibrosis, giving them intravenous antibiotics at home. It can be done. We were able to decrease the health care cost sixfold. At the same time, even more important, we were able to enhance the quality of care for these patients.
I congratulate the hon. member on his insight as to the importance of home care. We must provide the resources for home care and not misplace our focus on a wrong approach as the Reform Party is trying to propose.
Supply April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, of course that is not the access I would like to see happen. We recognize the problem and it must be solved. But their treatment for the problem is wrong. That is the difference between the Reform Party and the Liberal Party.
We must explore the means to solve the problem, not propose a solution that will create another problem where the ultimate result is even an greater lack of accessibility to the health care system.
Supply April 27th, 1995
This kind of approach by the Reform Party of cost cutting simply will not work.
I call the attention of the member opposite to a recently published book entitled Public Finance in Canada . It states that increased cost sharing in government medicare plans, where the policyholders can afford them, have great potential for reducing health care spending. However, it adds for such plans to be effective governments will have to ban the development of supplementary health insurance that will turn the patient's share of cost into a third party payment.
Simply put, increased cost sharing will have to be made mandatory and applied to all insurance plans, public and private, which would require increased government regulation of the health insurance industry.
I am perplexed that the Reform Party with its penchant for less government involvement is now calling for the very opposite. Is this a deliberate change of policy or a lack of understanding of the dynamics of health care financing in Canada?
The Reform Party is proposing a return to user fees. One very noted Canadian health care economist said that this is like a zombie, not to be resurrected again. User fees deter necessary care just as much as frivolous care. Reformers are showing signs that they have not even read the literature.
I am proud to be a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, which in 1919 conceived the idea for a national medicare plan. It is a party that in government gave birth to its reality. It is a party that when in government again nurtured and restrengthened the national health policy with the passage of the Canada Health Act of 1984. It is the legal centrepiece of our medical system as we know it today and a system that bans user fees and insists on equal access for all citizens regardless of their financial means.
The proposal by the Reform Party might not pose a problem for those with six or seven figure incomes but for me, for my Winnipeg North constituents and for the vast majority of Canadians it is utterly unacceptable. Inevitably we would be left with a system in which only the financially fit would survive. That sort of social Darwinism is anathema to the government.
The government is not looking to make Reform Party style compromises where the health of Canadians is at stake. Yes, this government has acknowledged the need to contain health care costs, which in 1991 were roughly equal to 10 per cent of the gross domestic product.
The difference between the government approach and the policies embraced by the party opposite is that the government is not prepared to surrender the principles of medicare to fiscal constraints but instead is working to balance fiscal responsibility and the preservation of medicare.
The solution is not easy. The government believes in a more imaginative approach than simply wielding a broad scalpel and cutting away indiscriminately at medicare as the Reform Party proposal would do.
Utilizing alternative modalities to achieve desired health outcomes and substituting equally effective lower cost treatment approaches for the traditional are parts of a strategic approach to meaningful reform of the health care system.
For example, more patients could be managed at home on an outpatient basis rather than in hospital. Patients could be encouraged to see their family physicians before consulting specialists. Medications could be used instead of surgery where possible. Other health care professionals could substitute for medical doctors in defined areas of treatment. Some of these approaches may require legislation to ensure that health care professional substitution does not compromise standards.
Another means of controlling expenditures without compromising quality of care involves eliminating costly waste in our system. Just as certain established medical routines, such as annual physicals and routine chest radiographs of tuberculosis patients on follow up have been discredited as effective and efficient health policies, other diagnostic and therapeutic routines should be scrutinized. There could be a greater reliance on physiotherapy and less on orthopaedic surgery.
Physicians should not hesitate to debate the issue of human resources supply in relation to the per capita needs of the community nor the issue of arranging funding so that moneys will be allocated according to patient needs and not the provider's level of activity.
All of these elements and many more constitute an effective health care reform strategy which would ultimately yield greater dividends for all Canadians in contrast to the quick fix, multi-tiered system the Reform Party proposes.
The government has positioned itself as a staunch defender of medicare as we know it but that does not mean it is committed to the status quo. It means that the government will continue to explore creative and cost effective options for maintaining health care for all Canadians in accordance with the five principles of medicare.
That is why the government has launched the National Forum on Health chaired by the Prime Minister. That is why the Canada health and social transfer program is now being negotiated between the provinces and the federal government, giving provinces the flexibility to deliver the health care system but, at the same time, maintaining the five principles of medicare. Then and only then can we ensure the crown jewel of our social programs survives and is strengthened. We can also ensure the quality of health care for all Canadians, rich or poor.
In conclusion, I appeal to the Reform Party to withdraw its motion rather than face the certain defeat it merits from the majority of the House, who have been sent here by the vast majority of Canadians to be their voice and their guardians and to defend, preserve and strengthen medicare.
Supply April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this motion put before us by the hon. leader of the Reform Party:
That this House recognize that since the inception of our national health care system the federal share of funding for health care in Canada has fallen from 50 per cent to 23 per cent and therefore the House urges the government to consult with the provinces and other stakeholders to determine core services to be completely funded by the federal and provincial governments and non-core services where private insurance and the benefactors of the services might play a supplementary role.
I hasten to say that by laying out his party's true agenda for health care in Canada, the leader of the Reform Party has dispelled any doubt that his party stands against medicare as we know it today with its five principles of universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public non-profit administration.
So many times in the House we have heard members opposite insist they support medicare. What we have in this motion is the Reform Party's advocacy for a multi-tier health system, one standard for the rich and one standard for the poor.
His motion proposes governments get together with stakeholders to determine core services and non-core services. The member further proposes that only core services be completely funded by governments, while non-core services be left to patients who, in the Reform Party vision, should pay out of pocket for supplementary health insurance.