Rob Merrifield

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Chair, I would like to change the subject to something that is really important, and that is be the SARS situation that we have been experiencing over the last couple of months in Canada and around the world. It continues to be out of control in China. I think we should consider that very carefully as we discern what we have learned over the last little while.

In a very non-partisan way, this all started on March 26 when I gave my questions to the minister prior to her coming into the House. I did not want to make this a political issue but an issue that was of most importance for Canadians. We need to do that when it comes to a crisis situation, which SARS certainly could have developed into in Canada, and some people thought it actually had.

On March 26 we asked the minister questions on this so she could get out in front of Canadians and convince them that everything was being done to contain SARS and to protect them from the virus. However, on March 27 a mistake was made when the WHO actually recommended screening at our airports on international flights out of our country. That recommendation was an eyeball to eyeball or direct interview as a screening prerogative or a screening measure at the airports. At that time when the question was asked of the minister, the answer was that it would clog up the system too much even though that was what the WHO had recommended.

I wonder why the minister did not, at that time, apply an aggressive approach rather than a voluntary single sheet of paper that people could pick up or not pick up. Obviously we were too lax and we ended up exporting SARS.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

How about the antidote?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, it will not take me a minute to ask the question, and I appreciate the Chair's indulgence. It is really a very important one.

Whether we vaccinate frontline workers is not as quite as important as whether we actually have the vaccine available to us. I know the minister was looking at putting it out to tender and purchasing 10 million doses.

Could the minister inform Canadians as to exactly where we are with that and why the delay? I think this was supposed to be done last January.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

It was a very short question.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, it is nice to say that but we are talking about estimates here tonight and I would have thought that we would have that information. Could the minister get that for us? I would certainly appreciate that.

I would like to shift to one other topic since my time is very short. I want to get into the SARS situation, but before that there is a smallpox situation. I think the Americans are working aggressively to vaccinate some of their frontline workers. We are in a process of doing that as well. I think there were 500 frontline workers who we were attempting to vaccinate but we pulled back on that I understand, and I am not exactly sure why. What I hear is it is because of liability and we are not sure whether we will stand between them and a bad reaction.

Is that in reality what is happening? Could the minister enlighten us as to why we are not vaccinating frontline workers?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask a question with regard to the estimates on the Romanow report. I think the 2000-01 estimates showed $7 million for the cost of the Romanow study.

Could the minister tell us what it accumulated to in the final analysis and how much Canadian taxpayer money went into that report?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, that is interesting rhetoric about how to fix the system and the minister is in a perfect position to be able to impact that. I would challenge her to get on with the job and stop the rhetoric that we have seen over the last decade.

Let us talk about that last decade a little bit. There has never been a government in Canada, provincially or federally, that accepted to or recommended to or pulled money away from health care, except for one party and one minister of finance. That is the party over there, which actually gutted the health care system in the middle of the 1990s. This is my question for the minister. She sat around that cabinet table for the budget in 1995. I am asking her how she voted on that budget. Would she do it again if that same budget were here today?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, if we want to set the record straight, it was the former finance minister who pulled the money out in the 1990s and suggested that the accord did not adequately deal with a couple of the issues: the waiting lists and the shortage of physicians and health care workers across the country. Now the minister is saying that has been dealt with in the accord, and that $90 million is in there for a study on how to distribute those, but does not really address them.

I am wondering what is happening here. It was the former finance minister who actually gutted the system because of the shortcomings in the accord and now we have the minister saying that the accord deals with all those problems.

Is the minister agreeing with the former finance member, the member for LaSalle—Émard, that there are shortcomings in the accord, or does she see the health accord as being totally adequate?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, it is a great opportunity having the minister here to answer some questions with regard to the estimates. We tried to have her appear before committee over the last number of weeks but we were blocked. However since she will not go to the committee it is great to see committee go to her. She is here now with her delegation of officials and we certainly expect to hear some answers this evening.

I will start by talking a bit about the health accord and what has happened with it. I think Canadians have applauded the accord in the sense that we are finally giving some money back to health care. Health care has received a little breath of fresh air in the sense that the federal government has stepped up to the plate with some of the dollars it pulled away from health care in the mid-1990s.

We agree with a number of things contained in the accord. New cash infusion is great. We said that provincial flexibility to implement those new programs had to be there, and the accord agreed with that. We also said that restoring some of the funding to core health services needed to be there and that there had to be no restriction on alternative delivery within that public system. All of that was achieved with the accord.

We told the government that it had to stop the funny money and that it had to stop trying to discern how much money was going from the federal government to health care. We said that the CHST had to be separated so we would know exactly how many dollars were or were not going in, because that seemed to be a real sore spot. Every time we asked the federal government how much money it was putting in we always received mixed numbers. Hopefully some transparency will now be added to that. Canadians put in $112.5 billion last year, which is a horrendous amount of money, and they need to know and deserve to know where that money is being spent.

We have identified some shortcomings in the health accord. They are actually shortcomings from the Romanow commission's report as well as from some of the other commissions that dealt with this issue. Very little action was taken with regard to waiting lists and the shortage of health care workers.

We in the Canadian Alliance have been saying for a long time that Canadians need some guarantees. If Canadians have no trouble putting $112 billion into health care then they need some guarantee of services. They also need a guarantee that they will not die while on a waiting list.

The former finance minister, the member for LaSalle-Émard, made some interesting comments on CTV's Question Period with regard to the problems with the health accord. I get very nervous when I hear an individual, who could potentially become the next prime minister of this country, saying that the accord might be scrapped. This is the same minister who pulled the money away from health care in the mid-1990s. It makes me quite nervous to hear that the accord is not adequate.

I wonder if the health minister agrees that the accord does not address these problems. Has she been talking to the former finance minister about this? Was there any dialogue between them? Is this a recommendation coming from her or is this a recommendation just from him? I would like to start with those questions.

[National Nursing Week, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is National Nursing Week and an opportunity for Canadians to celebrate the important role that nurses play in the well-being of Canadians.

Nurses are a valuable part of the health care delivery team, working hard day and night to relieve the pain and provide comfort for family members and loved ones.

This year Canadian nurses deserve a special recognition for their work in the global struggle against SARS. Despite the lack of leadership by the federal health minister, and at a time of great uncertainty and risk, nurses from across this country, especially from Toronto, have indeed been valuable frontline workers caring for the sick and supporting the efforts to contain this virus. Nurses have led the way in continuing to meet the challenging need of Canadians touched by this outbreak. Indeed, Canadian nurses have constantly demonstrated that they are the heart in health care.

I invite members to join me in acknowledging the significant contribution nurses are making, and I extend my warmest thanks to our Canadians nurses.