Judy Wasylycia-Leis

[Division No. 326, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on February 8, I raised in the House some critical health care situations. I asked the Minister of Health to inform Canadians how he was prepared to address the growing crisis in our health care system.

I raised the issue of a Windsor individual who was asked to leave the hospital after tonsil surgery, bleeding and vomiting. He wanted to know why he had to be discharged that first day. I asked the minister why cancer patients in Ontario were being shipped to the United States for treatment. At that time the Minister of Health suggested that these were provincial issues and that he could not interfere with those decisions. In fact, he abdicated full responsibility for those critical situations. That was before the budget. That was on February 8.

The question for us all today, especially since the government has just approved its so-called health care budget, is has the situation changed at all. Will people facing these horrific situations be any better off? It would seem to me that the answer to all these questions is essentially no.

Since the government took office in 1993 it slashed and froze money for health care. Every day now we see the results of those health care cutbacks. Emergency room line-ups still exist today. We see pressure and stress on our nurses who are overworked and overburdened.

We see delayed surgical procedures and we see growing privatization of medical services. Will the health budget undo the damage? It does not appear so.

The question for us all today is what steps will this government now take to ensure that all Canadians regardless of where they live are able to enjoy quality of health services.

In that question, the minister also suggested that the solution was not with the Reform Party which is promoting a two tier privatized health care system. On that point I will agree, having just a few weeks ago been in Windsor, Ontario where the Reform candidate actually stood up in a public debate and said we must end the public monopoly on health care. That says it all.

A couple of weeks ago at the united alternative conference, Reformers refused to allow for a resolution that would ensure national standards and raise the desire to allow provinces to implement user fees.

We know the solution is not with Reform's Americanized version of health care. I ask the parliamentary secretary today how they intend to pursue ending privatization of our health care and pursue their ideas for a national home care plan and a national drug plan.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Did you talk to the nurses on the ward?

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kitchener Centre will know that although I am from Winnipeg, I am fairly familiar with the Kitchener area. I was born and raised in a small village near Kitchener called Winterbourne, and I check in fairly regularly with my parents, Harry and Klazina Wasylycia.

I hope the member will agree with me when I say that my sense from that community is that the number one concern for all citizens in the area is health care. They are reeling from a double whammy, the effects of both cutbacks and regressive measures by the Harris Conservatives in Ontario and the cutbacks of the federal Liberals.

How does the member intend to deal with those concerns in that area? In particular how does she feel about any of this new federal money going to Premier Harris? He has opened up the whole home care program in that province to competitive bidding. This means that companies like Olsten, large American based profit making companies, are winning contracts to provide services at low cost while longstanding non-profit organizations like the Victorian Order of Nurses are fearing for their survival. It is really the patients who are at risk and people who need home care who are suffering because of this whole policy.

How does the member feel about money going to for-profit health care instead of non-profit delivery of home care?

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the Reform member failed to address the most important message Canadians are sending to Liberals and to Reformers. To use the words from the member's speech, they are saying “Don't you dare bring in user fees into our health care system. Don't you dare take our system any step further toward a two tier, for profit Americanized health care system”.

Yet that is exactly what Reformers did only two weeks ago at their united alternative conference. That is what they voted for. They had a chance to vote for national standards for a health care system but they voted that down. They voted instead to leave the door open for user fees.

The member talks about a united voice for Canadians. How did the member vote on that resolution? Where does his party stand on user fees? When will he join us in preserving medicare and going forward?

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to try once more to see if we can get clarification about where the Reform Party really stands on health care. In the last few days during this debate some members of Reform actually suggested that they truly do believe in a universally accessible, publicly administered health system. However, we know from the past that their health critic has said that core services of health care could be provided outside of medicare. We know from the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca that the party stands for a parallel, private, two tier health care system. We know from the member for North Vancouver that he praises the system in Florida and condemns what he would call socialist medicine in Canada.

At the recent United Alternative conference Reformers had a chance to clarify. A motion was put and there was a debate. There was a chance to add an amendment calling upon delegates to uphold national standards for a health care system. The delegates, which I assume included Reformers who were all present, roundly defeated this amendment, especially after one participant defended the right of the provinces to introduce user fees. Where did the member who is speaking stand on this issue? What is truly the position of the Reform Party on health care?

[Petitions, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition from hundreds and hundreds of Canadians in all parts of the country expressing their concern about the state of the Canadian health care system.

The petitioners call upon the government to preserve and enforce the Canada Health Act. They also call upon the government to ensure that the principles of universal coverage, accessibility, portability, comprehensive coverage and federal funding are lived up to.

Most important and most appropriate in terms of the state of health care in the country today, they call on the government to ensure that the principles under the Canada Health Act are applied broadly and are there for every citizen as a matter of being part of a civilized country.

[Division No. 325, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to go into more detail regarding my question to the Minister of National Defence on February 4 when I raised concerns about the governments administration of the Anthrax vaccine to members of Canada's armed forces in the Persian Gulf last spring.

Details of this matter came to light as a result of the treatment of Sergeant Michael Kipling of Winnipeg who refused to submit to the Anthrax vaccination last March. He was subsequently sent home, cited for breach of the National Defence Act and is now awaiting a court martial.

It is our view that Sergeant Kipling had every right to refuse the Anthrax vaccination and that his case has revealed serious negligence by the Canadian government in the administration of the vaccine generally.

We have several concerns, which are as follows.

The Canadian government did not take the proper safety precautions to ensure the vaccine given to the troops was safe.

We know from the FDA in the United States that the company which produced the vaccine relabelled an outdated lot of drugs. That is particularly interesting since today it is our understanding that there is no viable vial of Anthrax vaccine left in the country.

The Canadian government did not test the vaccine itself and relied on the testing done by the company itself.

There was no independent testing done. Mitretek simply used the results of the tests by the company in question.

The FDA in the United States has shown that there have been no studies done on the long term effects of this drug.

The Anthrax vaccination has been linked to the gulf war syndrome yet this country continues to dismiss, and is probably the only country in the world to dismiss, this syndrome and reduce it to a matter of stress on the part of the troops.

The lack of involvement by the health protection branch was noticeable and nothing was done to certify the vaccine. It is just another indication that the government is reducing its regulatory responsibilities and dismantling the health protection branch.

We have several recommendations. One, that the government investigate the administration of the anthrax vaccine. Two, that it initiate a review of the policies vis-à-vis vaccinations to allow for some method of waiver and some choice. Three, that there be an involvement of the health protection branch to get a scientific assessment of this vaccination and any other inoculation used on our troops. Four, that the government stay the charges and stop the court martial proceedings involving Sergeant Michael Kipling.

Sergeant Kipling has had an exemplary record during his 26 years of service in the Canadian armed forces. He raised serious concerns about the health and safety of the Anthrax vaccination. It would seem to us that, given his safety concerns, given the facts we have learned subsequently about the case and all the circumstance involved in this issue, surely it is unfair for the government to proceed with a court martial for Sergeant Michael Kipling.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member has not been very clear about his solutions to the problems of the health care system today.

Given all the comments of his colleagues around support for a parallel private health care system, support for core and non-core health services being available outside medicare, what is the position of the member's party with respect to support for for-profit companies? What does the Reform Party think about money from the federal budget going into a province like Ontario to fund, to line the pockets of large American based corporations like Olsten to provide home care?

What is the real position of the Reform Party when it comes to the steady slide toward an Americanized two tier health care system?

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul, if he feels this budget is so good and he was doing a lot of bragging about it in his speech, why did the government feel it had to spend $3.6 million to advertise it and engage in its public relations?

I would hope the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul is as concerned as we are about the $500,000 the Manitoba Conservative government is spending on feel good health care ads.

I wonder if the member will join with us in condemning both the Manitoba Conservatives and the federal Liberals for wasting public money to engage in self-serving ads. Would he not agree that every penny available should go into the care of patients and not into propaganda?

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague. It is a very important issue.

One has to ask the question: How can this be called a health care budget when there is nothing in it to deal with the economic and social disparities in our society which contribute to ill health, disease and poor quality of life? How can it be fathomed, this being a federal health budget, when we have third world conditions on reserves and when a reserve such as God's Lake Narrows in my province of Manitoba has just reported 12 cases of TB? That certainly is an important issue that the government has failed to address. There must be a focus on disease prevention and health promotion.

The other issue my colleague raised concerned economic disparities. As the gap grows between the rich and the poor and those at the low end of the wage scale do not see any benefit and are not able to improve their quality of life or even their ability to survive on a day to day basis, how does that affect their health? We know from study after study that money may not buy happiness, but it certainly does buy health. We know that when one's income improves, one's health also improves.

Our concern with the budget is not only its failure to acknowledge that, but that it actually worsens the situation by not dealing with unemployment, by not dealing with wage inequities, by not dealing with homelessness, by not dealing with poverty and by not dealing with deplorable living conditions on and off reserves in the country. This government is actually contributing to ill health and the spread of disease in the country and it is not doing one thing to build a healthier society over the long term.