Ralph Goodale

[Taxation, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, again it is a repetition of the same question.

I would point out that the Government of Canada invests a very substantial amount in our public health care system, in the order of $34 billion or $35 billion a year, all things considered. Because of the health care accord in 2003 and the provisions in my most recent budget, we will be increasing the federal commitment by some $37 billion over the next five years. That amounts to an annual increment of 8% per year, every year, ongoing for five years. When we arrive at the agreement on sustainability, there will be more from the Government of Canada.

[Taxation, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, again, there is a variety of ways through which the Government of Canada contributes to the funding of health care. We do so through the Canada health transfer and we do so in eight provinces through the money that is provided through equalization. There is a variety of other transfers as well that help the provinces.

We have made it very clear that once the first ministers arrive at a clear understanding about what constitutes sustainability and how we all need to work together to reform the health care system for the future, the Government of Canada will increase its financial participation on top of the $37 billion increase we have already provided.

[Taxation, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces have made a number of suggestions about the future funding of health care. As they know and as this House knows, there is a process under way now examining the sustainability of health care for the future. The Prime Minister and the premiers will meet in the summer to answer that question about sustainability and how we ensure that Canadians have access to the care they need when they need it through our publicly funded system.

The Government of Canada has made it very clear that when that plan for sustainability is achieved, the Government of Canada will be a full participant in its financial obligations.

[Question No. 81, May 6th, 2004]

In response to the question put forward to the Minister of Finance concerning woodlot owners affected by hurricane Juan, the minister requested that officials from the Department of Finance examine the proposal by the hon. member for South Shore of allowing woodlot owners to defer, over a 10 year period, income tax on revenues obtained from having to sell timber felled by hurricane Juan.

In its analysis, the department identified a number of concerns with that proposal. The measure could lead to inequities in the treatment of other taxpayers who experience other forms of economic loss from natural disasters, for example, forest fires, droughts, hailstorms, tornadoes and floods, or who experience income fluctuations from other causes. As well, providing a 10 year income tax deferral for woodlot owners would require the development of a number of complex rules to ensure that the measure functions correctly.

In the past, program spending approaches have been used instead of the tax system to address the effects of natural disasters such as the 1998 ice storm. Consistent with that approach, on March 4, 2004, the Government of Canada announced payments to the province of Nova Scotia through the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, DFAA, including $4 million for the effects of hurricane Juan. Under the DFAA, the Government of Canada cost-shares with provinces eligible expenses incurred to repair the damage from a disaster. Provinces choose how to direct assistance to disaster victims through their programs and the Government of Canada makes payments to the provinces for a portion of the expense of those programs.

[Health, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as much as our friends in the NDP try to stretch this point and twist it into a pretzel, they will not be able to achieve it.

I would remind the hon. member that I happen to come from a province called Saskatchewan which invented health care in the first place.

This government is profoundly committed to the principles of the Canada Health Act. We took that experiment in Saskatchewan that was so successful and made it a national reality that is one of the defining characteristics of this country, and we will not see it diminished.

[Health, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me make the observation that the budget did indeed include funding for health care: the $2 billion that had been committed to the provinces, plus an incremental $500 million approximately to advance our public health care system.

The government believes in a publicly funded, publicly delivered, publicly administered single payer health system.

[Health, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as I have pointed out, the government has committed a total of $525 million for individuals infected with hepatitis C.

In terms of the hon. gentleman's suggestion that not all of that funding has been used and his further advice on how it might be used, obviously we will take that as a representation.

[Health, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government has tried to be very sensitive on this issue because the people living with hepatitis C deserve that kind of conscientious attention and not just political hyperbole.

We have put together assistance measures that total some $525 million. In the administration of that program, the Minister of Health and previous ministers of health have tried to be as responsive and as conscientious as possible.

[Government Expenditures, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the undertaking made in the House was to go through all of the official documents, including the public accounts and the estimates, and to put together a complete picture of the uses of the unity reserve over the course of the last 10 to 12 years.

A very comprehensive effort was made to do that. In the interests of full transparency, all of that information has now in fact been put before the House in a coordinated way.

Indeed, the information would have been there earlier because it is all included in the public accounts and the estimates.

[Government Expenditures, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's assertion is again simply nonsense.

My original estimate with respect to this matter had to do with how much my department felt we could save over the long term. It was a perfectly legitimate general figure.