Allan Rock

[Hepatitis C, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was barely able to keep a straight face during that question. He knows along with everybody else in this House that it means no such thing.

To judge the measure of a government's commitment, look at what the Government of Canada has done. It has dedicated $1.3 billion to help. In terms of those before 1986 and after 1990, we have taken the position that those who are sick should get care, not cash; they should get treatment, not payment. That is the approach taken by this government. We believe it is in the interests of those who are sick.

[Hepatitis C, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in this context, I want to remind the member what the Government of Canada has done.

We have committed $1.3 billion for those who have contracted hepatitis C through the blood system; $800 million with the provinces to settle the class action lawsuit; $300 million to share the cost of medical services not covered by insurance for those who got the disease at any time; $125 million to strengthen the regulation of the blood system following on the recommendations of Mr. Justice Krever; $50 million for research; and $50 million for trace back programs.

We have taken our responsibilities very seriously. We have done what is right in the interests of those who have this disease.

[Health, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the deputy minister acknowledged, there are difficulties in the health protection branch which must be addressed and which are being addressed.

Even in the last year and a half look at what has happened. We have cut back on the reductions in the food labs. We have appointed an arm's length science advisory board. We have undertaken an intensive three-year transition process involving public consultations to renew the health protection branch.

We have put $125 million over the next five years into improving the regulations of blood supply. We are committed to ensuring the health protection branch does its job for the safety of Canadians.

[Tobacco, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we all support the principle of reducing smoking particularly among young people. That is something we all agree with, but that is not the issue. The member well knows there are procedural and constitutional issues with respect to that bill.

I want to say that regardless of what may happen to that bill, we are going to be examining the principles behind it to see how they can be adapted in the plans we already have, to spend money and energy and all the forces we can muster to tackle smoking among young people. We will take the principles of that bill, no matter what happens to it, and direct it to those efforts.

[Tobacco, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since 1994 this government has introduced taxes on cigarettes three times with the result that taxes have gone up between $2.50 and $5 per carton, depending on the province.

Since 1994 we have introduced the toughest anti-smoking legislation in the western world. We have committed $100 million to reduce smoking in this country. We have shown time and time again our commitment to tackling smoking in Canada and we will continue to do so.

[Health Care, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that provincial governments are responsible for delivering services. He will also remember that this is the government whose first step after it reached solvency was to increase transfers to health by $1.5 billion.

There is something else that has to be remembered. These questions emerge from an unlikely source. They emerge from the party that would gut medicare, that says the Canada Health Act is an outdated piece of legislation, that wants to impose user fees to have Canadians pay for medical services out of their own pockets. This is the party—

[Health Care, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that when all else fails they will resort to empty rhetoric. When all else fails and they cannot make their points on the merits, they resort to that kind of imagery.

We have made clear that health care will be the subject of the next major reinvestment of this government. We have shown even through the difficult last five years a continuous resolve in the area of health whether through increasing funding to health research, increasing the transfers by $1.5 billion—

[Health Care, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take the member seriously because we know he has no commitment to medicare and no commitment to the Canada Health Act.

It was the Liberal government that introduced the Canada Health Act. It was the Liberal government that invented national medicare in the country, and it is this Liberal government that will show once again its commitment to the principle of the Canada Health Act when it tables its budget next year and follows through on the Prime Minister's commitment to demonstrate that health care will be the subject of our next major re-evaluation.

[Health Care, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, quite apart from the errors in the numbers cited by the leader of the Reform Party, I think there is something more significant that Canadians should focus on, which is the irony of the leader of the Reform Party standing in the House to ask about the state of medicare.

Canadians will remember that he is the man and that is the party which promised to amend the Canada Health Act to provide for what they call a choice. We know what they mean. They want American style health insurance. They want American style health care. We are here to say that we shall never throw away medicare like the Reform would do.

[Health Care, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have done a great deal, from the health transition fund to the $1.5 billion increase in the transfer last year, to increases in health research in the last budget. I urge the Leader of the Opposition to await the next budget to see proof of our commitment to this reinvestment.

On the subject of transfers, since he refers to Ontario let the record show that the tax cuts which Ontario chose to implement instead of paying off its deficit have cost $4 billion in revenue. That is the real source of the problem that Harris and his crew are having.