Judy Sgro

[Crime Prevention, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

Constituents in my riding and in urban centres across Canada are concerned about the incidence of crime. What is the government doing in the area of crime prevention?

[Human Resources Development, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we continue in this House to hear constant attacks from the alliance party about the Minister of Human Resources Development and her department concerning the privacy files. I would like to read a direct quote from the privacy commissioner, Bruce Phillips. On May 30 he said:

I am not just satisfied with the minister's decision; I am delighted by it. I say this on behalf of Minister Stewart. In so doing, I realize that I may be treading into places I ought not to go, but it has been my experience from past dealings with this particular minister on privacy issues that when she has been fully informed and on top of the case, she has responded very quickly. The protocol they presented to me last week for discussions could not have been much improved upon if I had written it myself.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we only provide the money. We have to be able to co-operate and work with the provinces to ensure that they make the changes necessary to preserve our health care system so that we will have an effective pharmacare program and a home care program that will look after the people, which we are all very committed to seeing happen.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything the member has said in the sense that we are all here as Canadians. This is an issue of major importance to each and every one of us in the House. It does not matter what party we are with, we all want to make sure that we have the best health care system.

The commitment from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance is that there will be additional dollars on the table. This is not a pot that we can keep putting dollars into. We have an aging population and a lot seniors in need. We need to make some changes in the system. We can raise all the concerns about home care we want, but we need to work with the provinces. We cannot just keep writing the cheques. Funding, as I understand, is back up to the 1993-94 levels. More money has been committed in the health area, but there have to be changes.

The province of Ontario is sitting with money in the bank while people are desperately in need of care. That is a real problem. Giving the province of Ontario more money is not the answer. The question is, what are the changes and how are we going to make sure that we have a sustainable health care system for all? There is no issue that will unite Canadians, politicians and all governments to make sure that happens more than this one.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a gross misrepresentation of the facts that I stated and of comments that were made earlier in the House.

The government is firmly committed to enforcing the Canada Health Act and providing Canadians with access to great medical care in the country. We have no intention of standing back and allowing anything to deteriorate the system.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the opposition motion by the NDP.

As the minister has said, the government does have grave concerns about public funds going to private for profit facilities. In Canada our health care system is predominantly publicly financed and privately delivered. It is publicly financed in that our universal single payer health care system accounts for about 70% of total health care expenditures in Canada. It is privately delivered in that most health care providers and facilities operate in a private not for profit manner.

The system has always had private components. For example, most of our doctors are private practitioners or entrepreneurs, if you like. Most Canadian hospitals are operated as private non-profit entities.

In addition to the publicly insured physician and hospital services we all receive, provinces and territories also provide public coverage for other health services that remain outside the national health insurance framework for certain groups of the population, such as seniors, children and welfare recipients. These supplementary health benefits include prescription drugs, dental care and vision care. While provinces and territories do provide coverage for some of these additional benefits, for the most part they are privately financed. These health care benefits account for about 30% of Canadians' total health expenditures and are financed privately through supplementary insurance, employer sponsored benefits or directly out of pocket.

As Canadians know and appreciate, the values that underpin our medical care system are synonymous with being Canadian. The fact that people in this country have access to hospital and physician services based on their need and not their financial means is truly a unifying feature of Canadian life. Our publicly financed health system is a social contract between governments and citizens to take care of one another regardless of financial means or economic position.

One has only to talk to Canadians born before medicare and listen to the stories of families who lost their life savings, of individuals who could only have surgery when the community got together and raised funds, or of loved ones who suffered because they could not afford health services, to know how important medicare is to being Canadian. This alone is a strong argument for a one tier, single payer health care system and, more important, for all of us to be working to keep it together.

The real threat to medicare is the increasing involvement of the private sector in the delivery of necessary health care services on a for profit basis. This raises concerns about the integrity of our public system and whether a two tiered system is not far in the future.

This is worrisome, especially since our system is envied by many other countries. Globally, Canada's health system is seen as not only a core social value, but also a program that enhances our competitive position in the world economy.

Let us look at overall health spending. Canada spends about 9.2% of its gross domestic product, the GDP, on health. The United States spends 14% of its GDP on health, and still 43 million Americans do not have health insurance coverage. Another 100 million are under-insured.

How can we spend 9% of the GDP and still cover everyone? The big difference is the cost of administration. The American multi-payer system simply costs more.

Look at payroll costs in Canada and the United States. In the U.S. they are six times higher. Medicare is one of the reasons Canada has the lowest payroll taxes of any country in the G-7. Canada's business leaders recognize that medicare is a key economic asset, not a burden. Our single payer, publicly financed health system makes Canadian businesses more competitive by keeping their costs down.

As John McCallum, chief economist at the Royal Bank of Canada, said recently with regard to health care in Canada “The goals of efficiency and financial egalitarianism go hand in hand”.

While Canada is the country best equipped to deal with the pressures of an aging population and increased health costs, there are still challenges and problems.

The Minister of Health and the Prime Minister have both said and emphasize that the status quo is not on. However, the way to solve these problems is not to replace the status quo with a private, parallel, for profit system. Innovation and change do not necessitate private for profit health care delivery, but sometimes provide an excuse for that very fact. Yet ironically we hear time and time again that the answer is to turn to private for profit systems for health care delivery when in fact from an economic standpoint there is little evidence to support this conclusion.

Numerous studies from countries where there is private for profit health care demonstrate that when compared to publicly provided health care it costs more, provides lower quality and fewer services, reduces equity and accessibility and drives up the cost of public service.

A parallel for profit system would draw the best and brightest doctors and other health providers also from the public system, leaving the rest of us in the public system with diminished services. However, if procedures in the private system get complicated and more elaborate service is required, we know where those cases will be, right back in the public system.

The public system ends up subsidizing the private one by having to provide services that will not turn a profit in the private system. In short, Canadians would be worse off than if the services were delivered publicly. From my perspective Canadians will be better served when changes, innovations and capacity issues are addressed within a publicly financed and publicly provided health care system.

An important decision about changes to medicare should be guided by sound, solid evidence, by governments working together to address Canadians' needs. Instead of privatization we need to be working together to better organize and manage the current public health system.

It is quite clear that the Government of Canada has a long term sustainable plan to modernize, strengthen and preserve public health care in Canada. Canadians expect their governments to work together to ensure the renewal of this most cherished social program. The government stands ready to engage in this most important challenge. It is not beyond us to solve the problems that confront medicare, but we must get on with the job.

The Canada Health Act is flexible enough as it stands now to protect public health care. The Minister of Health has stated that, as we have in the past, we will enforce the Canada Health Act in the future if violations occur. This government will enforce the authority in the Canada Health Act if practices threaten the five principles on which our health care system is based.

[International Day Of Families, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on this International Day of Families.

As most of us know, countless Canadian parents face the daily struggle of balancing work and family life. Today approximately 70% of married Canadian mothers work outside their homes. Up to 60% of them return to work six months after the birth of their children.

Studies, as well as leading academics, have found that in the first year of their lives children benefit greatly from increased contact and stimulation by their parents. A strong relationship makes the children more creative, secure, sociable and curious individuals.

The government recognizes the critical responsibilities parents have in raising their children and understands the need to balance work and family life in the year 2000.

For these reasons the government has proposed to extend parental benefits to give parents the choice of staying at home for up to one full year. This will provide flexibility for mothers and fathers in the labour force.

Helping families to provide a supportive environment for their children is not only a worthy social goal, but increasingly a national economic imperative.

[Export Development Corporation, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Would he once and for all refute the comments and the allegations that were made in the House by a desperate Reform Party looking to smear the government?

[Employment Insurance, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I am confident that members of all parties will support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Miramichi which asks that the government take immediate action to review the employment insurance benefits for seasonal workers.

Canada's economy is such that we have always had and always will have seasonal industries. These industries are vital to our economic well-being. However, these industries by definition employ people for only part of the year. We must always remain watchful to ensure that our economic and social programs do not exclude those workers from the rewards and benefits of living and working in Canada.

Let me remind the House that the Government of Canada introduced employment insurance after long consultation and much deliberation. Even then, we built in a monitoring and review process that would report back each year for five years.

The new employment insurance package was aimed precisely at ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all Canadian workers, whether their work was seasonal, year round, part time or full time.

Let us not forget the very good reasons why an extensive redesign of the EI program was carried out. The old unemployment insurance system was questioned for its sustainability. It was not responsive to the new labour market that prevails in Canada. It tended to discourage attachment to the labour force.

What is most pertinent to Motion No. 222 is the fact that the system was unfair in its treatment of some workers, most notably part time and seasonal workers.

The resulting employment insurance system is designed specifically to be sustainable and fair, while encouraging work and ensuring benefits are provided for those in the greatest need. Of course the ultimate goal is to help workers get back to work faster and stay employed longer.

EI also recognizes the reality of Canada's labour market where seasonal workers are prevalent in certain industries. Seasonal workers have particular needs and the program does indeed have special features built in to assist seasonal workers. Is it enough? Possibly not.

The hours based system takes into account the fact that seasonal work often involves long hours of work per week. As a result, many seasonal workers therefore find it easier to qualify and receive higher benefits for longer periods.

Another example is the introduction of small weeks pilot projects. These would allow seasonal workers to take all work that is available, even a few hours a week, without it resulting in a lower benefit rate at their next claim.

Also, the family supplement targets low income families with children by topping up their benefits each year. Those families are also exempt from the application of the intensity rule which normally reduces benefits for claimants who make repeated use of employment insurance.

Then there are the active employment measures under the EI program which are helping many seasonal workers upgrade their skills, enabling them to get back into the workforce more quickly.

The effects of the EI program are being monitored continuously. There is a requirement for monitoring and assessment reports for the five years following its introduction. Yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled in the House the third annual report, which showed that EI has affected frequent claimants less than claimants overall and that benefits paid to unemployed workers in most seasonal industries have increased substantially. While the entitlement of frequent and seasonal claimants declined from 33 weeks to 32 weeks, this was still three weeks more than in 1995 when the EI regime was introduced.

In short, frequent and seasonal claimants appear to benefit from the switch to an hours based eligibility system, even though frequent and seasonal claimants often have fewer insured hours during the year than other claimants.

I believe that the EI regime provides better coverage for seasonal workers compared to the system it replaced. Is it perfect? No, it is not. Is there room for improvement and change? I hope so. As for providing for the well-being of all Canadians, without doubt the government can stand on its record. More than 427,000 were created last year alone and 85% of them were full time jobs.

We need to make changes in the employment program, especially for seasonal workers and those men and women in Atlantic Canada who work in the fisheries. We need to find some improvements. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that happens.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, what we are talking about today is the CJF and TJF funding. There are thousands of other programs that amount to millions of dollars which, from my understanding, went to all ridings throughout the country.