Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to take part in this debate on two important subjects, those being health care and the equality of the two official languages of Canada.
I will begin my remarks by offering my congratulations and good wishes to my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier. I recognize, as do members of the House, that the member has long been a champion of and a contributor to the defence of minority linguistic rights in Canada.
I say with some humility on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party that we too have always respected the linguistic duality of the country and have a record to back up that assertion.
With respect to my colleague's initiative before the House, I want to note some of his commitments and contributions in the past. As this is a private member's bill, it is clearly the position of our party that in keeping with the best traditions of respecting an issue as important as this, we will be permitting our members to freely vote their conscience and vote freely on behalf of their constituents on this matter. I also want to assure the hon. member that this initiative will be taken very seriously by the Progressive Conservative Party, for the very reasons I have stated.
The Progressive Conservative Party has always taken an interest in issues concerning the official languages. The French fact in Canada is something that has shaped our history, our culture and our future.
Along with the ethnic diversity and our long historic relationship with first nations people, our linguistic duality contributes to the richness of the country and the entire Canadian experience. I would suggest it also contributes to our ability to connect and to associate with the wider world.
Specifically with regard to minority linguistic rights, the Conservative Party of Canada has always sought to defend the minority against the natural intrusions that come about as a part of majority rule.
Under a Conservative government, the linguistic status of New Brunswick was enshrined in the Constitution. Our government provided substantial financial assistance to the province of Manitoba when it was required by the court to translate rulings of all its statutes. There is a history of action on this file.
I am sure Quebeckers in particular will recall the attempts we made through the Meech Lake accord to further protect the rights of linguistic minority communities throughout Canada.
I also want to note that language is very much a determinant of health, which is the pith and substance behind the hon. member's motion.
For instance, according to recent studies, statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests quite clearly that francophone communities in which services are available in French tend to be healthier than communities in which services are only available in English, in one language. That stands to reason for clearly an individual's ability to communicate with the health care provider in a language in which the individual is comfortable is extremely important. That comprehension, that comfort level is extremely important.
I would go further in suggesting it is important for health care response and also the preventive elements of health care. In fact in keeping with some of the Romanow recommendations that are anticipated, there is a greater need to allow health care service providers to help Canadians anticipate and cut off some of the actions, behaviours and health risks in a proactive pre-emptive way.
It stands to reason that whatever minority language, French or English, if a patient is unable to understand and communicate effectively on their very treatment, on their very health, this is something we have to take very seriously and we have to respond to. This is very much the spirit of the bill.
I do not want to undermine that sentiment, I would like to put on the record a few reservations I have about the bill itself. First and foremost, it is fair to say that the atmosphere, the crisis that is facing health care in the country today places it as the number one priority for most Canadians. For those in government at all levels this is what has been dominating the debate. That is in no way to take away from the thrust of the bill. However, I suggest reservedly that there are higher priorities on how we bring about improvements in the health care service.
The federal government already is not doing its fair share when it comes to health care funding. The provinces are strapped for cash and it is inconceivable that the government would impose another condition on the provinces without equally appropriate financial assistance. That is to say given the current state, figures suggest that as little as 18 cents on every dollar that is spent on health care in most provinces comes from the federal government. The rest is carried and picked up by the provinces. To put a system in place, as laudable as it is in this case, that would not be accompanied with sufficient and significant cash increases would further impinge upon the provinces' ability to deliver health care.
I do not want to go off on a partisan jaunt, but we have heard a great deal from the former finance minister about the democratic deficit. At the same time that particular individual likes to claim ownership over having defeated the deficit.
What happened is the deficit was transferred. It was transferred to the provinces and deficits were created in other areas such as health care, the military, and education for students. These are very telling issues when one looks at priority spending and at responsibility and accountability for the status of health care today.
The Progressive Conservative Party has been calling for a sixth principle to be added to the Canada Health Act. This bill in essence calls for the creation of a sixth principle in the Canada Health Act. However, instead of binding provinces further, our sixth principle would in fact bind the federal government to stable funding for health care. Then and only then would I suggest we would be able to add the further principle envisioned by the hon. member's bill.
I believe the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier has brought forward a very worthwhile proposal, but it has to be viewed in the broader context. It has to be viewed through the lens of the status quo of health care as it exists today. Without stable funding, all of the other principles are meaningless. Creating new principles would simply further act as a drain on those who are tasked with the very serious day to day delivery of health care.
When one examines any social issue at this point in our country's history, that has to be part of the discussion. The current crisis today in health care has to be laid directly at the feet of the federal government because of cuts to transfers. Cuts to transfers in Canada's health and social spending have devastated the health care system and it has whittled away at the status in every province.
I hope that the member at some stage might review his proposal and add an explicit commitment that any movement on this front would be accompanied immediately and automatically by increased funding to accomplish this worthwhile initiative.
I also note that Canadians are still waiting for action from the government on health care. We have heard a great deal about the various reports, the Mazankowski report, the Senate report, the upcoming Romanow report. If we were to speak to any nurse or doctor in any community in this country, they would tell us what is wrong with health care. While a patient has to wait for basic treatment, the government has indulged itself in a dance of all these different studies.
The time for study is over. We must now take action.
Again I strongly urge the member for Ottawa--Vanier to put his issue to the government so that it can consider within the wider context of health reform this very principled, very worthwhile initiative.
On that principle, I recommend that we recognize the practical reality of the other circumstances that affect the consideration of his bill. I am sure the member would agree that a reasonable means test be applied to provinces and communities.
