Val Meredith

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would hope I would get some extra time for having been interrupted.

I was just saying that the federal government promised back in World War I that the income tax would only be a temporary war measure. We know what has happened to income tax, so there is a lot of skepticism if one were to get into a fifty-fifty project.

It is interesting that some members, the NDP in particular, and other Canadians are really concerned about private health care in Canada. I really shake my head because we have private health care in Canada already. In reality every doctor's office, most of the clinics and most of the labs are private facilities. These groups, and again I point to the NDP, shudder at the thought of private hospitals, claiming that private hospitals are more concerned about the bottom line than they are about patient care. I have news for them. Public hospitals are also concerned about that.

I know that in my own riding there is a hospital where the administrator admitted that the hospital preferred to have long term care beds for seniors and others than surgical beds, because they were cheaper for the hospital to maintain. It was cheaper for the hospital to have seniors in extended care situations than to treat surgical patients. Why? Because the hospital was able to meet the bottom line and balance its budget, or at least get close. Even public hospitals are concerned about cost cutting measures.

Another example in my riding is a Surrey hospital which in the 1980s and 1990s went through some major, extensive renovations. It opened new wings, then turned around and moved out of the old wings and into the new wings. In essence no new beds or new facilities were created for the patients. Even though the population has increased by 100,000, for all intents and purposes, there are no extra beds available.

We have to be concerned. I have asked my constituents a number of times about these issues. I would like to share with the House that two-thirds of 1,700 respondents indicated that they did not have a problem with private hospitals. I gave them lots of information. I even mentioned that in the United States there was a study indicating that there was a two per cent higher risk of dying in a private hospital, and they still felt they could support it. They also supported paying for services. They felt that it was important to get facilities and to be able to pay for them.

It is time to quit studying the problem and to start fixing it. Canadians want to have an affordable, top notch health care system where no one is denied necessary medical services and where people receive the services in a timely manner. Everyone has to do one's part for this to happen, including Canadians.

Last but not least, Canadians have to take responsibility for living healthier lifestyles. Last night we saw a series on obesity. Canadians must take responsibility for their own health and well-being and live better lifestyles so that there is less reliance on our medical system to make up for their own negligence.

Canadians are ready for significant changes in our health care system. They want to have access to it. They need to have access to it but they want to have some choice. They are prepared to pay more to have that choice. It is time for the government to show a little courage, look beyond the status quo and provide Canadians with an adequate health care system that meets the needs of all Canadians regardless of their income.

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on the take note debate on health care.

Last week was the ninth anniversary of my being elected and the election of the government across the way. One would think after nine years that we would have solved some of the problems instead of just having another take note debate. We have been taking note of health care for nine years and it is time to do something about it.

Within a month the Romanow commission will table its report. From the comments that have been made publicly by Mr. Romanow, it would appear that his major recommendation is that the health care system is fine, that it just needs a few more dollars and we just need to tinker with it.

I would argue that more money is not necessarily the answer. Day in and day out the Minister of Health gets up and brags about how much money, the billions of dollars, the government has put back into health care. It is convenient the government does not mention that it took out billions of dollars a few years ago. Even at that, after putting in all these billions of dollars, there are still problems with our health care system.

I would argue that the problem is that most of the new money which has gone into health care has paid for the increases in salaries for those who are employed in the health care industry. Seventy per cent of all health care dollars go to salaries.

British Columbia had to raise the sales tax half a per cent just to cover the doctors' pay increase. Doctors strikes from B.C. to Newfoundland and Labrador, nurses strikes, hospital workers strikes, more money into the system but the same waiting lists and the same problems remain. Somehow more money does not seem to be answering the problem.

Last week the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology tabled its volume 6 report on health care. There was an extensive list of recommendations, but the one that received the most media attention was its recommendation that $5 billion more from the federal government go into health care spending.

The Senate committee proposed different ways of raising this money. One of the ways was to increase the GST by 1.5%. I assume that most members seem to have difficulty with this. I know the public does. Canadians do not feel this is the answer because most of them remember when the Liberal government said that it would get rid of the GST, but who knows.

If this were to be imposed, it would mean that in British Columbia for each $100 a person spent, they would be paying an additional $2 in taxes just for health care.

One of the other suggestions was that the federal government should institute health care premiums. Again, in British Columbia this is nothing new. We already pay health care premiums. We are only one of two provinces that do.

The Senate committee recommended that there be a sliding scale of premiums dependent upon income. If this plan were to be adopted, it would mean that the average two income family of three or more in British Columbia would be paying more than $2,000 a year in medical premiums.

Despite the notion that every Canadian is entitled to health care regardless of the ability to pay, this is not always the case.

A couple of years ago I raised the issue of a constituent of mine, Tim Jeffries, who severely broke is ankle. He went into surgery to have something done and he was asked if his health care premiums were paid up which they were not. It was not until his mother paid his back health care premiums that he was taken into surgery. He was actually removed from the surgery room until his mother paid his back premiums.

It was noted that in the fall of 2000 an estimated 200,000 British Columbians were not covered by health care. Five per cent of the population had no health care coverage because of their inability to pay the premiums.

If the government were to adopt the Senate recommendation, it would mean that B.C. families would pay twice as much. It would be interesting to know in our province alone how many people would not be covered and certainly across the country how many people would not be covered by health care premiums.

The Senate report also recommended that new programs be added, such as home care for post-operative and palliative care patients and that these programs be funded fifty-fifty by the province and by the federal government.

One can accept the fact that people and particularly the provinces would be very skeptical about that. In B.C. the provincial government already pays over $10 billion or 41% of its provincial budget on health care.

The province increased its health care budget by $1.1 billion last year alone. If the federal government were to implement this, it would mean an extra $5 billion, but for B.C. it would mean only $650 million. That would be a help, but it is certainly only a small portion of its budget. To get this small portion of its budget, B.C. would have to agree to spend it the way the federal government wanted it to be spent.

The provinces are very suspicious about any federal government commitment of fifty-fifty. In the 1960s a Liberal federal government made a commitment to the provinces that it would share the cost of health care fifty-fifty. Right now the Liberal government is only funding 14%. This is a far cry from fifty-fifty.

Federal fuel taxes were brought in and they were supposed to go into highways and other transportation projects. Yet only 3% of these taxes go back on transportation.

What about the federal government promise back in World War I that income tax would only be a temporary war measure?

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-280, an act to amend the Criminal Code (selling wildlife).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reintroduce this bill. The bill is in the same form as the previous Bill C-292 at the time of prorogation, albeit certain sections of the previous bill have been removed as they made reference to sections of statutes that are no longer in force. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, I ask that this bill be reinstated at the same stage it was in when the first session of this Parliament prorogued.

The purpose of this bill is to make the selling of wildlife and wildlife parts an offence under the Criminal Code unless carried under and in accordance with a licence, permit or an exemption order. The sale of threatened or endangered species or their parts would attract an increased penalty. Such offences would also be subject to the money laundering provision of the Criminal Code. I leave that in your hands, Mr. Speaker.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague feel that the government backbenchers are the ones who are allowing the government to force their agenda and to force the situation on the House of Commons because they do not stand up, do not think for themselves and do not represent their constituents, but allow the Prime Minister and the cabinet to think for them?

[Political Anniversaries, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this week is the anniversary of two significant events that have had a major impact on Canadian politics.

Fifteen years ago I was one of 262 delegates who founded the Reform Party of Canada in Winnipeg. From this small group and through the hard work of countless dedicated volunteers, we were able to become the official opposition in less than 10 years, a significant accomplishment.

While there have been some bumps along the way of our evolution to the Canadian Alliance, our influence has been undeniable. We have forced a Liberal government to do the unimaginable: balance the budget and maintain a surplus for five years. Now we even hear that the leading contender for the Liberal leadership is espousing our long time policies of democratic and parliamentary reform.

The second major event is the ninth anniversary for the large group of members of the House who were first elected in 1993. I think we would all agree that it has been one heck of a ride.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am a little distressed after listening to the comments made by the hon. member across the way. My impression is that he sees this large amount of money as another government spending project.

Does he not realize that with the changing demographics in our country that less people will be paying into the pension plan and more people will be taking out of it? If the sole reason for investment is not to make the most return on this pension plan, then there is a great chance that this whole idea of providing for future generations will not be there.

Does he believe that this pension plan should be used for environmental programs, health care and other government spending programs?

[Iraq, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would agree that Canadians are hopeful that the United Nations will take a stand and be very strong in the position that it takes with Iraq. Canadians generally are very hopeful that the United States will give the United Nations an opportunity to go as far as it will. But I think Canadians are also very aware that the United Nations has failed the world community in the past as well, that the United Nations in many instances has failed to act when it should have. If the hon. member would look at Kosovo, it was not the United Nations that stepped in, it was NATO.

So I think that there is also a history showing that the United Nations has been slow to act or has not acted at all. Canadians recognize that and are hopeful that the United Nations will show some teeth in this action it has to take.

[Iraq, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I felt compelled to take part in this debate on the Iraq situation. Over the last couple of weeks I have gone from one side of the equation to the other in dealing with the concerns. I appreciate some of the concerns that have been expressed, some of the historical sequences that have happened, some of the things that countries have done that perhaps they should not have done, but I think we have to look at where we are. We have to look at where the United States is right now and, whether we like it or not, September 11, 2001, changed the way we all look at things. The United States is now holding hearings in its Congress over the information the intelligence communities had. Had they put it together, had they shared the information, had they done something about it, they could have prevented what happened on September 11.

We are dealing with a nation that is having to look at information and how it deals with the information it has. Even on the other side, where people have a concern with the direction that the United States is going in or appears to be going in, they admit that the foe is a mighty foe, that Saddam Hussein is a horrible person who has shown absolutely no kind of moral climate, either in his own country or in his dealings with other countries, that he used biological weapons of destruction against the Kurds, and that he used the same against the Iranian soldiers in the Iran-Iraq war. He has a history of using weapons of mass destruction. He has a history of not being concerned about his people. There has been more concern shown for the people of Iraq from the members of the House, this Chamber, than their own leader has shown.

There is also a concern about changing the conditions of the UN resolutions. There is a reason for wanting to change the conditions. There are 17 resolutions out of the United Nations and they compromise themselves by saying that presidential palaces are excluded. There is a concern, and there should be, about them being excluded. These are not residential palaces like Buckingham Palace. It is not our terminology that they use. These palaces are huge, massive compounds. It has been brought to my attention that there are 8 of them, that there are over 1,000 buildings, some of them large warehouse buildings, and that one of these palaces covers 44,000 acres, which is larger than Washington, D.C. There are an awful lot of things that can be stored, developed and hidden in an area of 44,000 acres, in something the size of Washington, D.C. It would be very naive for anybody to expect that this kind of area would not be part of the allowable inspection.

Tonight and in other debates I also heard concern that the United States is setting Canada's foreign policy, that Canadians are being sucked into having to follow the United States and its foreign policy. I would suggest that people should be equally as concerned if we were to let the United Nations set our foreign policy, if we expect the United Nations to set Canada's foreign policy. I think Canadians expect the Canadian government, the House of Commons and the Canadian Parliament to set Canada's foreign policy, keeping in mind what is in the best interests of Canada.

I think that what has to be and has been brought up in the debate is the role of the United Nations. It was established precisely to deal with conflicts between countries, hopefully to bring the collective will, thought or pressure of the world communities into peacefully settling these conflicts between nations rather than having nations unilaterally taking military action.

As a Canadian, I am pleased to see that the United States has gone that route. The United States has not at this point unilaterally gone to war against Iraq. The United States is willing to recognize the role of the United Nations, albeit it has run into problems enforcing the 17 resolutions currently on the table. The United States has said to the United Nations “Let us try to get a tougher resolution and then let us go to bat to support it”. That is a critical point. It is not good enough for the United Nations to pass resolutions and look like it is doing something. It has to be seen by the world community as doing something. It has to be seen that when it makes a decision, when it makes and passes a resolution, it has the will and the might to enforce it. If all the UN does is put a piece of paper on the table and is not prepared to enforce it, then it is just a paper tiger.

I think the United States is correct when it says to the United Nations that it is willing to recognize the UN's authority or place in this debate, that it is willing to recognize the world community in dealing with this issue, but that in the end game, if it can be shown that the United Nations is not prepared to act on it, then the United States will have to act on its own or with its allies.

The best way to describe Canada's situation is that Canadians need to be convinced by the United States, Great Britain, Australia and those that have gathered as part of the growing allies of the United States that there is justification, that it would be a just action for us to join them. The best way to describe where we are is to borrow the phrase of former American supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: There must be “a clear and present danger” to justify this pre-emptive strike. Canadians have to be shown that there is a clear and present danger to us and to the western democracies.

It is important that we go through this process of having the United Nations look at a new resolution to make sure that all areas are part of the inspection. In the event that the United Nations does not come up with a new resolution, in the event that the United Nations is not prepared to support the resolutions already on the table, and if Canadians feel it has been shown that there is a clear and present danger of biological, chemical or nuclear warfare being used against the United States, against us, or against the free world, then we are obliged to be part of the effort to make sure that does not happen.

I think that is what Canadians have to deal with: the decision may come down to the fact that we have to take part in the American-led allied team action against Iraq. That leads us to a concern a lot of Canadians have, and that is the sorry state of our military. Here we are, once again being asked to put our military into harm's way. It is a disgrace that the government has allowed our military to get into the state that it is in. The military lack the equipment, the personnel and the funding to properly equip themselves and to be in a readied state to assist in any kind of armed conflict in which they may be asked to participate. It is interesting that it was the Liberal chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs who stated last spring that our foreign policy is this: writing cheques that our military cannot cash. That is a very interesting statement coming as it does from a Liberal committee chair.

It reflects how all Canadians see the situation our government constantly puts our military in. I think that Canadians feel, regardless of what happens with Iraq and whether we end up in a military conflict with the allied forces in Iraq, that the government must pay more attention to and give more resources to our military so that when they are called upon to act on behalf of Canada or the world community they are in a position to do so.

I look forward to the end of this debate and hope the end result is that there are satisfactory resolutions coming out of the United Nations, and I hope that the United Nations will show the strength and the will to support those actions and support what has to happen to make sure that Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the world community.

[Petitions, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions on behalf of residents from the Lower Mainland. The first petition contains 249 signatures, the second petition contains 422 signatures.

Both petitions call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Canada-U.S. Border, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this problem existed prior to the job delays. Despite a significant influx of U.S. customs personnel at the border, delays are caused by the American concern over the lack of Canada's commitment to continental security. Despite all the agreements, the Americans still do not trust the Liberal government to provide an appropriate level of security. What steps is the government taking to alleviate these concerns?