House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 38% of the vote.
Committees Of The House November 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Health.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Tuesday, May 12, 1998, your committee has considered Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation), and agreed to report it with one amendment.
Supply November 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the member and I have debated this kind of issue in the past. I do not mean to diminish some of the inputs because I have as much concern for those who are ill or suffering or making demands on the system.
As I said earlier on, from the federal point of view we are in the position where we are funding. Those who are delivering the system and administering the system are at the provincial level. This is one of those disconnects where we are being held accountable for something for which we have no responsibility.
With respect to some of the figures the hon. member gave, the last figures I looked at a couple of months ago put us in third place among the OECD countries in public contribution to spending on health. We are marginally behind Germany and France and in fact we are ahead of the United States.
Most academics and researchers in the area would say that Canada is very much in line with virtually all the other major industrialized nations in the world, in terms of—
Supply November 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some points that would concern all of us. He has reinforced what I said a moment ago, that the licensing and certification of doctors through colleges of physicians and doctors is everywhere in the provinces. If he is concerned about a restrictive area, that issue should be taken up through the provinces with those colleges.
I am one of those who say we should get more doctors into the small towns and rural Canada. To suggest that will be done overnight because the federal government will be increasing its funding through transfers to provinces is oversimplifying the situation completely.
Supply November 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
I have been listening attentively and I am impressed by the verve and passion with which members opposite have been expressing their views in defence of provincial jurisdictions, i.e., the authority of bureaucracies to administer a particular program. I thought that the motion had as its intention an indication of what our responsibilities might be toward Canadians and toward their health needs.
The last time I looked, not to be too sarcastic, probably all Canadians were not looking at their passports in a moment of illness. They were not looking for which jurisdiction was responsible for the delivery of a system when they were in need. Most Canadians when they are ill are looking for a very responsible, competent and compassionate approach to easing their pain, their malady, their illness.
It is rather troubling as a Canadian because in this House all members are supposed to be representing the interests of all Canadians and yet we seem to have this intense desire to ensure that a jurisdiction is the most important element to defend. That was not what I thought the mandate of a member of parliament might be. It was to put forward programs that were to be to the advantage of all Canadians, all those who make a contribution to this country both fiscally and civic. Whether it be in economic or community terms we are all in this place together.
Having said that partly as an element of frustration for a member of parliament who is looking forward to having input in policy that will translate itself into programs that have universal application in the sense that every Canadian can access this service no matter where they might live, no matter where they might find themselves in the course of travels in this country, I want to refresh some views for members and perhaps change the debate slightly from where it appears to be going.
That ministers at the provincial level asked only last fall that the federal government put more money into health care than what was currently there and taking this statement as essential gospel for what must happen is a very selective way of looking at the politics and the pragmatics of the decisions that led to the CHST.
When the program that combined EPF and CAP and other equalization benefits was put together for the health and social transfer the government was responding to a request by provincial ministers. Notwithstanding the partisanship in the House, those provincial ministers came from all provinces as well as the territories. They asked the government for one lump sum transfer.
Why did they want that? They wanted, to use their demands, flexibility in the usage of the transfers from the federal authority to provincial and territorial jurisdiction.
What they wanted was predictability in funding. They wanted stability in funding. They wanted to co-operate in areas in order to reduce overlap because the overlap was to translate itself into efficiencies both in delivery of services and obviously in cost.
I take pains to point out that this was a request by the provinces, including the provinces of the two members who just spoke. The provinces received a commitment that there would be no less than $11 billion in cash transfers. That amount has since been increased to $12.5 billion. In addition, the provinces were to receive tax points which in an expanding economy have translated into increased income and increased revenue. For that the provinces were extremely happy.
Has the politics changed since the time when the provinces made those requests? Perhaps. Have the obligations of those provinces that were partners in coming to this decision changed with respect to the demands of Canadian citizens anywhere and everywhere? No.
Is it possible we are engaged in a very partisan political discussion regarding whose responsibility it is once an agreement has been put in place to deliver services that were required and identified?
Surely every reasonable member in the House would say yes, we have struck this deal, we abided by your requests, please do your job. Harvard University studies, studies done in the United States and studies virtually everywhere in the world have indicated that the problems in health care are not only evidenced in Canada. The problems are evidenced everywhere. But a major reason for the problems is administration, not funding.
If there is a person in this House who would say that they cannot do a little more with a few dollars more, I would like to find that individual. But there are more people in this place who say we are not underfunding our needs when there is some $72 billion annually spent on health care.
Where does the federal government fit in? It has been attacked by opposition members who are using partisan tactics in order to diminish the responsibility that the Government of Canada has assumed for itself and which it is divesting, I think, rather reasonably and vigorously.
Opposition members have neglected to point out that in addition to the lump sum payment going to the provinces every single year, the Government of Canada instituted an innovation and research program that would revitalize medical science research at universities and hospitals to the tune of $800 million. That is not chicken feed with all due respect to those in the agricultural sector.
There is over $150 million in the transition fund that applies to every single Canadian no matter where they live. That money is being used for innovative and pilot studies in all provinces and territories. We have looked as well at increased funding to the medical research council. All those moneys go toward health care.
If health care is to be defined in terms of all that leads up to the delivery of a system, all that is required in order to make a system functional, then I think we owe it to ourselves in the House to be reasonable and to be objective even though we are trying to be partisan when we tell Canadians just what the state of the health care system is.
It may be sexy to find out about one item that appears to be illustrative of what is wrong with the system but let us also be honest in our debate. Let us give credit where credit is due and assign responsibility where responsibility is due. If we want total responsibility for the administration of a system, do not offload that responsibility or shirk our responsibility by saying it is the fault of those who abided by an agreement we demanded.
Holocaust November 18th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I too today rise to honour these survivors of the holocaust. The Canadian Society for Yad Vashem today honours these survivors.
Canada has been enriched by the decision of those survivors who have made our country their home. Theirs has been no mean contribution. After a dehumanizing challenge unparalleled in history, after losing property, family and friends, these men and women, survivors of the worst infamy perpetrated by humanity on its own kind, came to Canada to seek out a society wherein they could help build regard for tolerance, respect for diversity and the elimination of discrimination and bigotry.
Their lives in Canada read like a model of good citizenship. In short, they came, they saw and they made a difference, in business, in education and in community building.
I am proud to be associated with true heroes like those in the gallery and like my constituents, Alex Grossman, Elas Chandler, Fanny Silberman and my good friend Michael Rosenberg. Like all other Canadians, I thank them.
Committees Of The House November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Health in accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, October 20, 1998. Your committee has considered Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act. The committee has agreed to report it with amendments.
Again, I thank all committee members for the energy they put into its deliberation.
Committees Of The House November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled “Natural Health Products: A New Vision”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report within 150 days.
About one year ago the Minister of Health asked the Standing Committee on Health to examine the issues related to natural health products, herbal medicines and alternative therapies. The committee took the mandate and listened to more than 300 live presentations and received over 1,000 written depositions on the matter.
The committee sat over the course of about eight months and through careful deliberation has come forward with a series of recommendations that it is confident the department and the minister will accept with great receptivity.
I take this opportunity to thank all members of the committee, past and present, for their diligent work, their thoughtful and energetic exercise in this matter, all the witnesses who wrote and who appeared before the committee, and all those government officials who made themselves available during the course of our deliberations as well as the committee staff for being so ready and willing to listen to our every little intervention.
Hepatitis C June 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thought it was pretty clear. Even if he wants to reread that letter over and over again, I gave an indication that a series of options was presented.
Obviously there was agreement on some and less agreement on others. The working group will take all those things into consideration, evaluate them, weigh them, cost them and give the appropriate governments an indication of which ones should receive priority.
If the process is working, as the letter suggests it is, then he should wait until all that work is done and get a definitive response.
Hepatitis C June 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the member is probably referring to some of the proposals that were put on the table at the earlier part of the week in Edmonton in the two day session when all submissions were being presented to the working group.
I suspect that the member upon close reading of that letter will find that some of these suggestions may have had greater weight than others. I am going to wait, as we will wait, for the working group to give us a definitive response.
Hepatitis C June 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful to trace back in history to only a year ago to recognize that none of the provinces or the territories, in fact nobody was interested in compensation.
If leadership means bringing people to the table when they did not want to consider any such issues, well then that is leadership. The minister brought his colleagues from across the country together to the table. They fashioned out a compensation package, one that is agreed upon even by members of the opposition parties. We have before us at least the workings of a method of dealing with the most tragic issue in this country's health history.