1991-03-19

[Stage Direction]
[English\

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-73, an act to provide for the dissolution or transfer of certain crown corporations and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, with one amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia, who point out a whole set of reasons why they feel the government ought to be paying more attention to passenger rail service and point out how they believe VIA Rail service could be improved to compete with some of the European railways. They are simply asking the government to reconsider its decision to cut back on VIA Rail service in Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present another petition on behalf of a large number of British Columbians, particularly from the communities of Kamloops, Salmon Arm and Soren-to, who point out a number of concerns regarding the situation in the gulf as it has occurred and as it is unfolding. They are asking for Canada's participation in a most positive way in the post-conflict period.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I have several sets of petitions today. The first set of petitions comes from constituents in my riding of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, concerning the goods and services tax which my constituents still feel is an onerous and unfair tax and they wish to make Parliament aware of their ongoing opposition to this tax.
The petitioners are from West Arichat, St. Peters, and various places in my constituency. They wish to register their ongoing opposition to this tax.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): The second petition concerns the elimination of VIA passenger rail service from Truro to Antigonish, Nova Scotia. The petitions come, first of all, from the students of St. Francis Xavier University, who are opposed to the government's decision to abandon VIA Rail passenger service. They point out that since that passenger rail service was abandoned over a year ago, the transportation needs of the students are much more difficult to meet. It is a burden on students in the area who want to leave on weekends because the alternatives to passenger rail transportation are much more expensive.
Another group of petitions concerning VIA Rail passenger service comes from the town of Antigonish. The residents of the town of Antigonish, more than one year after the elimination of this service, are still opposed vigorously to the government's decision and have shown up in large numbers to express their concerns by signing a petition to that effect.
[Stage Direction]
Supply


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Finally, on a totally different issue, but one which the government still has an opportunity to correct before it is too late. This concerns the imposition of exorbitant dock-side monitoring charges to the inshore fishermen of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, many of whom happen to live in my constituency.
These charges are absolutely ridiculous, when it is considered that they come at the same time as fishermen in my area are forced to endure drastic reductions in their quotas and increases in their other costs. They are not only an imposition on the fishermen, they are also an unnecessary bureaucratic measure.
They call upon Parliament and specifically the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to rescind these measures before they are obliged to pay them. They have submitted their names, in large numbers, on a petition to that effect.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North) moved:: That this House reaffirm its commitment to Medicare.
He said: Mr. Speaker, medicare belongs to all of us, to all Canadians. It is shared by every member of this House and all of their constituents. Medicare is no less prized in Winnipeg North than it is in Kelowna, B.C., or Port aux Basques, Newfoundland. Medicare is the undeniable right of every Canadian citizen. It belongs to my sons, and their children to follow. It belongs to the children of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and to his colleagues and their children. It is perhaps the most precious thing all Canadians have to pass on to the next generation.
Medicare is not a partisan issue and ought not to be. It should be the issue of each and every one of us. I ask the members of this House: Will we now be the ones to see medicare die? For this reason, to allay the fears I and others have for the future of medicare, I have called for this opposition day motion supported by my associate critics, the members for Hamilton East and Mississauga, and by my other colleagues.
I want this government to reaffirm in the minds of Canadians that it is committed to medicare. I want to challenge this government to make its agenda known. We have proposed a motion that this House reaffirm its commitment to medicare, a very positive motion.
I want Canadians to see that the Liberal Party, of which I am the critic for health and welfare, cares deeply about the future of our health care system and that we still believe in its universality, comprehensiveness, portability, and accessibility, and that it is a system that has to be funded continuously, publicly, on a non-profit basis.
March 19, 1991

I hope today we will all openly declare our resolve to nurture medicare and not let it be trampled by shortsighted government policy or by lack of government initiative. What is at stake here is inconceivably dear. It is the one thing we have that is unique to every Canadian despite race or religion or region. Rich or poor, young or old-it is a birthright. I cannot reiterate this enough.
I hope members will all vote with conscience and listen to the things about to be said on each side of the House. Measure their value and remember very few matters concern your constituents the way health care does. It touches the lives of everyone. Those who do not protect medicare, those who do not reaffirm their commitment to our hospitals and nurses, doctors and other allied health care professionals, and to our sick, will be held accountable.
With this accountability in mind, I will proceed.
For months I have been watching the steam building on the issue of medicare. It started with the budget of last year. At that time the government put its first restraints on money delivered to the provinces for health care. Then came the introduction of Bill C-69, the complicated government expenditures legislation which slipped past this House into the Senate and was given Royal Assent early in February this year. This Bill C-69 launched a critical government-backed assault on medicare.
As the social and health care groups across the country can attest, Bill C-69 is a deadly bill for health care and other social programs. It freezes and cuts transfer payments, the moneys transferred by the federal government to the provinces to aid medicare, and post-secondary education.
It is my feeling that this fiscal change will cripple medicare. I can already see the end commencing. This bill passed into legislation was only a few weeks old when the new federal budget was released by this government in February.
As we well know, this budget further increased the freezes and caps on the federal money needed for provincial health care. An additional $2.3 billion was taken from transfer payments, an incredible sum. They cannot slice $2.3 billion from transfer payments without seeing health services suffer. It is impossible. I defy the government to tell me and the Canadian people that our
Supply
hospitals and health care will be left unscathed. Impossible. The strain is too great.
Things are already beginning to crack under the pressure. A domino effect will be the result. Crisis after crisis, one test after another will assault a weakened Canada Health Act. It only stands to reason that without the federal money maintaining national standards will be an unattainable goal.
Right now the steam is continuing to build. Adding to the pressure was a particular meeting in the autumn of last year when western finance ministers grouped in Winnipeg, my home city, to lead very significant discussions about health care. While the theme was good, the potential results and the emerging results are ominous.
The western ministers agree the federal government should deliver transfer payments while relinquishing control over national standards of health care. We cannot allow that. The western ministers want disentangling of federal funding and autonomy for health care policy in the provinces. We have to maintain a national health care system in the country.
In December of last year came an announcement from the minister of health for Quebec that he planned to revamp his province's existing health care system. The main bone of contention, if I could mention one, in the proposed reform is a proposed $5 disincentive fee, which I prefer to call a user fee. This fee would be for non-essential visits to emergency wards.
When I posed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on this issue, he said he would consult with his provincial counterpart in Quebec. Have we heard the response yet to date? I have not heard, but perhaps later in the debate the minister would be kind enough to inform the House.
To me this development is highly reminiscent of the early 1980s when user fees and extra billing threatened universal medicare. Sometimes it only takes a spark to light a fire. From east to west health care is coming apart at the seams.
In Newfoundland, 360 acute care hospital beds and 900 health care workers have lost their jobs. Finance Minister Kitchen told the Newfoundland legislature that he had no choice but to make the cuts. His province has lost $180 million in transfer payments in the past year. Who is truly the culprit? This federal government.
In New Brunswick, members of the provincial legislature are travelling across the province trying to find new ways to trim health care costs while meeting their

March 19, 1991
Supply
budget. Mr. Maher, the province's finance minister, has said he would consider farming out services. He also said New Brunswick would be one of the first provinces to reconsider seriously compliance with the terms of the Canada Health Act. That certainly is very ominous. I would like the Minister of National Health and Welfare to be prepared with his answer.
In Ontario, Minister of Health Evelyn Gigantes has been quoted as follows: "When it comes to over-all health policy, we have a lot of work to do. We know that certain populations, natives, francophones, multicultural groups, are not participating fully in the benefits this society makes available to others".
Meanwhile, the Ontario minister of finance said: "I think Mr. Wilson is making it very difficult for the provinces to maintain their commitments to medicare".
Ontario is currently spending 30 per cent of its budget on health care. Farther west, closer to my constituency in the province of Manitoba, hospitals have been told to slash their budget by $19 million. This announcement came from the provincial government last week. The province told hospitals in Brandon and in Winnipeg to shave operating costs. There is fear that beds will be closed and services cut. The hospitals may also be called upon to absorb any additional costs from the dreaded goods and services tax.
Saskatchewan, we all know, was the first Canadian province to obtain public medical insurance. That was 45 years ago. Who back then would have envisioned our hospitals of today where babies small enough to fit into the palms of our hands can survive and grow? But even Saskatchewan declared that its provincial medicare is facing cutbacks in health care services.
Alberta and British Columbia are perhaps the two provinces best able to meet national standards despite cuts in transfer payments. Yet their governments have made no secret of their interest in again charging user fees and of disentangling the federal hand from provincial health care.
In the northern communities, especially in the isolated Indian reserves or the villages of the Dene and Inuit, proper health care has often been lacking. Inuit babies are 28 times more likely to die in infancy than are babies
in the south. Native Indian babies are 19 times more likely to succumb during infancy. Those death rates are Third World in their nature. The huge gleaming hospitals of the provinces, whirring with technology, are but a dream to these people. Medicare is a concept they deserve to know. That should be a government priority: creating services, not restricting them.
It would be scaremongering to say the rest of Canada could have their hospital care stripped away, but the reality remains. Daily our health care system is becoming more taxed and stricken with debt and fiscal restraint. The purchase of new equipment, even the maintenance of old equipment, becomes exceedingly difficult to fund.
Meanwhile, the largest health research funding agency, the National Health Research and Development Program, had its budget cut by $2 million this year. I believe research into new medicines, a more efficient health care delivery system and preventive treatments are absolutely necessary if we are to control health care costs, yet only one-tenth of all money spent on health is channelled toward prevention.
I believe, by not focusing more attention on prevention, we cannot hope to maintain services while coping with burgeoning health costs. Some costs of health needed to be addressed long ago. By not dealing with them, the provincial and federal governments have left themselves vulnerable to an impending health care crisis. I am speaking about wage disputes and high turnover of nurses.
On February 20, in a full-page ad in a local daily newspaper, the Ontario Nurses Association printed a letter entitled Nurses Continue to be Taken for Granted. I quote from this letter:
Recession or no recession, the nurses have continually received short shrift in terms of financial remuneration. They have fallen further and further behind comparable workers. It almost seems that society considers them dedicated amateurs who neither need nor deserve full monetary compensation.
This full-page ad was a call for public support. Just like the nurses in Manitoba earlier this year, the nurses in Ontario are set for contract negotiations. They too are caught in the funding slash that denies them wages, of provincial governments which are unable or claim to be unable to meet their wage demands. The problems are already coming to fruition as qualified nurses become
March 19, 1991

harder to find. From every angle, from without and within, our health care system is being pressured.
I ask the government to turn its attention to hospitals closing beds due to lack of funds and to explain to patients and staff that transfer payment cuts are not a problem and that direct taxation by the provinces will fill the void.
Meanwhile, our nurses and doctors are flocking to practise in the United States. American companies hand out glossy brochures displaying sunshine and smiles. Money is not an object, the way it is in our country. More of the American Gross National Product goes to health care than that of any other country.
As our shortage of nurses becomes critical in Canada, we will see them disappear, beckoned south by higher wages and salaries commensurate with the respect they deserve.
There are other things as well: treatment facilities for new diseases and for the elderly. Care centres for the elderly are desperately needed as their numbers swell with the addition of the baby boom generation. These are problems we Canadians face today: beds closing, inadequate care, stressed health care professionals.
I challenge you, Mr. Speaker, to ask any American which country, our or theirs, has a better health care system. American will say Canada, because in Canada we are guided by five basic principles of the Canada Health Act: accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, universality, and non-profit public administration. These principles ensure that every Canadian, rich or poor, has the right to proper treatment.
The United States has many beautiful facilities with technology that is the envy of the world, but those centres are for the people who can pay to be well. It is a two-tiered system of health care, where what one earns and where one resides determines the treatment one receives. Without proper health insurance, one accident, one disease, can destroy the life savings of a family, ruining their lives.
There are many issues in our health care system that need to be addressed. There are issues that have been left to fester and problems that are new today, but there
Supply
is no question in my mind these problems must be tackled. But are transfer payment cuts the way to do it, or will that make the suffering worse? I submit that the suffering will be worse.
Some people believe the government will introduce new legislation to protect medicare, as was said in the budget, that the government will give away tax points to the provinces in exchange for the reduction in transfer payments. But I ask: What is the policy basis? Have we told Canadians?
The problem remains: What will happen to the have-not provinces? They do not have a tax base that can deliver more tax to them for medicare funding. Those provinces will have no choice, as was recently seen in Newfoundland, but to cut services.
There are two points which must be considered. First, medicare is slipping away right now. Beds are being closed. Without proper funding a breakdown is occurring. Only a renewed financial commitment to medicare will halt this collapse. Second, with the change in funding policy the government will lose the penalty measures for provinces not abiding by the Canada Health Act. It is imperative the government move to find another penalizing system.
Medicare is a Canadian institution that must be protected. It was promised to Canadians in 1919 by the Liberal Party. It was given birth by the Liberal Party and we would like to continue to nurture this great social program.
As I conclude, may I say I hope we can again find the support for medicare we had in 1984, only six short years ago. I would like to hold the minister of health to a statement made in the House on December 17, and I quote:
One thing the (government) does is respect the Constitution of
Canada. We respect the fact the delivery of health care services is
given to the provinces within the confines of the Canada Health Act.
I pray this respect for the Canada Health Act is still part of the Conservatives' tenets. I hope the Conservatives and every member of the House will join me and my party in support of medicare.
I ask this House to reaffirm our commitment to this basic right of citizenship and move to address the problems confronting our health care system.

March 19, 1991
Supply


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to turn the tables and to be able to be the one posing the question to my hon. friend for a minute or two.
I have two questions for my hon. friend. I listened with a great deal of interest to his call for members on all sides of the House to support the motion. One assumes that was a sincere call. I want to ask the hon. member these two questions.
Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the motion he has placed today asking for support for medicare is put in the guise of an Opposition Day votable motion which, if passed, would be a motion of non-confidence in the government?
Second, is the hon. member aware of a single instance or can he cite a single instance where such motions have been treated in any other way other than as a motion of non-confidence?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am not a person esteemed in procedural rules. However, we should go beyond the procedures and go to the substance of the motion.
To the specific question of whether it will be a non-confidence motion, I would leave it to the experts on rules. I would like this government to make its commitment during debate that in fact it is committed to medicare, that it will restore funding for medicare, that it will prevent the "Americanization of Medicare" as published by Frances Russell in Canadian Forum, and that it will prevent Ontario from potentially looking at user fees when Ontario says it will copy Quebec's new health plan. We do not know.
I would like the government to be concerned. In this week's issue of Medical Post the headline is: "Medicare Murdered". In this weekend's issue of the Free Press one focus article reads: "Budget may spell the death of medicare".
Without going to the refinements of procedure, I would really like to tell the minister that I offer this as a sincere motion. That is why I saw to it that we introduced the motion in a positive way.
I believe it is a non-partisan issue. I believe it is an issue for all Canadians. This House must support this
motion if each member and each political party truly believes that we are committed to the continuing life of medicare.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, let us get greater precision from the hon. member as to what he is expecting today. The hon. member cannot cite a single instance when a votable Opposition Day motion has been treated as anything other than a vote of non-confidence in the government, which would have the effect if the motion were to pass of requiring the government to resign.
Does the hon. member seriously expect that any government could support a motion like that, knowing it is treated as a vote of non-confidence? Again, can he cite a single instance where his party, when in power, treated Opposition Day motions which stem from the old motions of non-confidence in any other way? How can he be expected to be taken seriously when he calls on members on this side of the House to support a motion of non-confidence in the government?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I think this side of the House and all Canadians are truly disappointed with this government because it is treating medicare with disdain. It is trying to kill medicare. By the year 2014, if we continue with the current trend of funding, medicare will be dead. It will be earlier in Quebec. It is estimated to be in the year 1995-96.
To the specific question of the minister-and I have the highest respect for the minister whom I have always held in high esteem-this motion has been carefully thought through and considered. We certainly would like the government to come to its knees and defend itself.
When we have listened to all the debating points, we will see. I challenge the government. Perhaps it is time we declare openly we have no confidence in this government because it is trying to kill medicare.


Mr. Jim KarpofF (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite fascinated by this whole motion put forward by the Liberals.
I must say that for once I agree with the minister. There is no question that this motion is being put forward facetiously by the Liberals in the hope that the government will vote against it.
March 19, 1991

I would like to ask the member how he can reconcile his position with the fact that the erosion of medicare was initiated by the Liberals. Read the budget of 1975 of the former leader of the Liberals, John Turner. He is the one who capped the transfer payments and brought in the whole business of block funding to get away from the partnership that was built with the provincial governments so that they would not be required to pay 50 per cent of the costs in the early 1980s.
The Liberals unilaterally moved away from the revenue guarantee which costs the provinces $1.2 billion every year in lost revenue for medicare. The Liberals did that. How can the member stand up and say the government is eroding medicare when the foundation for that erosion and abandonment of medicare was laid by the Liberals in those three instances?
Why did the Liberals bring in the measures which eroded the medicare system and actually brought in the foundation for the federal government to erode it?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am really excited that there is an active debate emerging on the issue. In fact, it is part of the rationale of why we decided to put this motion before the House.
We would like the attention of all Canadians focused on this, because if we review the history and the commitment of this government to social programs, we see that it has done away with many the social programs step by step.
Now, Mr. Speaker, through you to my colleague from the New Democratic Party who would like to pontificate and would care to forget the lessons of history, I am glad that today he did not say that the NDP started medicare. Once before, he did say that. Finally, he has learned the lesson that it was the Liberal Party in the 1919 Liberal convention that made a commitment to Canada to introduce medicare.
After we conceived the idea, unlike the NDP, we put action into it. We gave birth to it. After having given birth to medicare, we would like to continue to nurture it like a good parent to any child.
I think the hon. member forgot that the newest Canada Health Act was introduced in 1984. I do not know where his history book is. I ask the NDP to put on record whether he will join the government and defeat
Supply
this motion. I would like him to say "yes" or "no" when his opportunity comes during debate.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today is about medicare and whether Parliament continues to support it.
That is the motion, but the issue is something very different indeed. It is about truth and whether members on all sides of this House will deal openly and honestly with the challenges facing Canada's health care system.
In the exchange which just took place with regard to the nature of the motion before the House, we learned the facts. The motion itself is very symptomatic of the problem. What it does is demonstrate the tactics which are being employed.
On the face of it, it is a very straightforward motion calling upon members of Parliament to announce their support for medicare. The vehicle being used, as is conceded by the Liberal Party opposite, is a non-confidence motion. Were it to pass, it would require the government to resign. We can hardly accept this as an honest attempt, a straightforward attempt, on the part of the Liberal Party to encourage non-partisan all-party support for the principles underlying medicare.
The opposition parties say that they support medicare, and I accept their word for that. On this side of the House we also continue to support this country's system of national health insurance, although the Liberals and the NDP would sow false fears among Canadians and have them believe that the government has a secret plan to do away with medicare.
What evidence do they tender for such a claim? From time to time, it is simply unsubstantiated claims that some element of the free trade agreement which they have as yet been unable to find would require it. The fact that the free trade agreement does nothing of the sort has not dissuaded them. It is politically convenient to sow the seeds of fear.
More recently, they have added a new claim; that federal financing for medicare is drying up. It is a claim that is equally false and which becomes no less false with repeated telling. The most recent example of this tactic was reported in Saturday's issue of the Saskatoon Star-

March 19, 1991
Supply
Phoenix, which reported the deputy leader of the Liberal Party telling Liberals:
-what we are really talking about here is a scheme to totally end federal payments for Medicare across the country.
Federal payments to the provinces in support of medicare take two forms-cash and tax points-which together will total more than $14 billion this year. Per capita payments will remain the same as last year, although total payments will grow by about 1.2 per cent. The latest scare tactic is based on the fact that since 1977 when the Liberals introduced the new formula for funding of medicare, the way in which Ottawa transfers money to the provinces has been shifting away from direct cash payments and toward tax transfers.
The net effect for both the federal government and the provinces is identical, no matter how the payment is made. When cash payments are made, the federal government simply uses money raised from federal taxpayers and transfers it to the provinces. When tax points are used, the federal government reduces income taxes in the province by a specified amount, and the provinces increase their taxes by an identical sum. Both methods represent a draw on the federal treasury and both put money directly into provincial hands to pay for health care.

This year, as I said before, transfers to the provinces will total over $14 billion, about $10 billion more than when we came to power in 1984. Of that amount, more than $8 billion will be in the form of tax points.
For Quebec, the figures are as follows: one billion dollars in cash payments and $2.5 billion in tax points, a total of more than $3.5 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot make the deputy leader of the Liberal Party give Liberals the straight facts. It is a matter for Liberals themselves to deal with. What we can do, however, is to make sure that Canadians as a whole are not misled.

Before the Budget was brought down, concerns were raised about the federal government's future ability to enforce national standards for health care as set forth in the Canada Health Act.
It was feared that if the federal government were unable to withhold payment of cash transfers to the provinces, there would be no incentive for the latter to observe the five basic principles; portability, accessibility, universality, public administration and comprehensiveness.
That is why the Minister of Finance announced that the federal government would amend the Fiscal Arrangements Act to allow transfers to provinces to be withheld for purposes of enforcement, if necessary.
This is a clear indication of the government's intention to maintain its authority to enforce compliance with the Canada Health Act.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are passionate supporters of the system. From its inception, it has enjoyed support from all three of our major political parties and today enjoys the support of 90 per cent of Canadians.
Canadians are proud that each of us has equal access to medical care. They like it because they are free to choose which doctor to see and are entitled to a full range of services no matter what their level of income.
Canadians support medicare because they can travel anywhere in the country, safe in the knowledge that they will have access to the care they need, regardless of where they need it.
These principles have become part of how we see ourselves and how we distinguish ourselves from others. Medicare is more than just an issue in Canada. It has become a fundamental social value. It is, in fact, a social value that many other countries would like to adopt. A Harris and Associates poll conducted in the United States reported that some 61 per cent of Americans favour adopting the Canadian health care system.
A November 1990 study by the Department of Human Resources in Oregon, concluded: "The Canadian system is attractive to many American observers, because it combines capitalism with social responsibility".
Anyone who finds this hard to understand need only put himself in the position of one of the 37 million Americans who has no medical insurance of any type.
March 19, 1991

-Has medicare improved the health of our population? Absolutely. At the time we introduced the first element of our health system, our infant mortality rate was running 40 per cent higher than Australia's, 30 per cent higher than the U.K.'s and 5 per cent higher than that of the United States.
By the end of the first year that the system was in place, our infant mortality rate was identical to Australia's and the U.K.'s and 10 per cent lower than that of the United States. Today our infant mortality rates are 20 per cent lower than the American rates and among the lowest in the world at 7.8 per 1,000 live births.
When medicare was introduced, we found that pregnant women started showing up a couple of months earlier for prenatal care than they had previously. The result is that our maternal mortality rates have dropped by a third.
It is not surprising that Canadians support their health care system, nor is it a surprise that all of Canada's political parties say that they support it too.
When I began my remarks I said that while the motion today was about medicare, the issue was the truth. By that I mean not just the false claims by members opposite that the government wished to dismantle medicare, but also whether Canada's political parties are prepared to take the measures necessary to ensure that medicare and our other social programs will still exist in the future.
In his budget, the Minister of Finance announced a tough plan to control expenditures at all levels, including money transfers to the provinces. Per capita payments under the Established Programs Financing will be frozen. Canada Assistance Plan payments will increase at a maximum of 5 per cent a year for the three richest provinces, although it remains uncontrolled for the other seven provinces. In order to protect those poorer provinces, equalization remains unchanged.
In total, transfer payments to the provinces will rise by 3.7 per cent a year for the next three years. We are not asking the provinces to follow any restrictions that we are not prepared to apply even more strictly and stringently to federal programs. Federal program spending will increase by only 3.4 per cent over the next three years.
Supply
From members opposite and from my hon. friend from Winnipeg, we have heard a great deal of apocalyptic talk: medicare is dead, they say. The sick and the poor will be thrown into the streets; the Canada Assistance Plan cannot continue.
The opposition would have Canadians believe that provincial governments cannot possibly bear the burden being imposed on them. We heard it again today from my hon. friend from Winnipeg. The facts, however, paint a very different picture. The restrictions on transfers this year will amount to one-half of one per cent of total provincial revenues. What the provinces are asked to do is to examine the other 99.5 per cent of their spending and to set priorities, just as we have done at the federal level.
If you look at all of the nations in the world which have publicly financed health care systems, you will find that Canada spends the highest percentage of GNP on its system. Each year we spend nearly $60 billion on health. The sector employs 7 per cent of our workforce, including 57,000 physicians and a quarter of a million nurses.
You can imagine my surprise when I heard members of the opposition state on budget night that medicare in Canada is dead. Indeed, my hon. friend from Winnipeg quoted an article from the Winnipeg Free Press of this last weekend suggesting that the budget could have killed medicare.
I would cite to him instead another article, an editorial which appeared in his hometown newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press, on February 28, 1991, under the headline: "Medicare Still Lives", the first sentence of which reads: "The death of medicare instantly proclaimed by the Liberal Party's deputy leader, Sheila Copps, and others in the wake of finance minister Michael Wilson's budget is not after all imminent".
We can all choose to cite selectively what articles or editorials we would like to have quoted on the floor of the House of Commons. I would hope that when my hon. friend is reading his hometown newspaper, he would read what they say in their editorials as well as what they run on their op-ed pages.
It is simply not true when members opposite suggest that medicare is dead, but to survive it needs to be built on a sound economic foundation. Simply running up

March 19, 1991
Supply
ever-higher national debts will not protect medicare. Instead it will threaten its ability to survive.
All members of this House should know some basic truths. The first 36 cents of every tax dollar that the federal government raises goes simply to pay the interest on the national debt. In Ontario only 10 cents goes toward servicing the debt. Alberta pays 8.5 cents and British Columbia pays less than 4 cents. It simply makes no sense to have the federal government, which is already running a $30 billion deficit, borrow even more money to give to provinces which have much smaller debts.
Fortunately not every one has taken an irresponsible approach to this debate. Monique Begin, the former Liberal health minister, speaking at a conference just after the budget was tabled, said that federal restraints would not end our health system. Frank McKenna, the premier of New Brunswick, showed that he understood the ramifications of the debt when he said: "The leaders of the 1960s and 1970s have placed a first mortgage on the future of Canada. The leaders of the 1980s and 1990s are placing a second mortgage on the same assets. There is no equity left. We must once and for all put an end to the suffocating debt load we are placing on the backs of our children."
The people I have quoted are not, to say the least, known for their support of the Conservative Party. What differentiates Madam Begin and Premier McKenna from their fellow Liberals in this House is that they recognize that the cause of preserving medicare in Canada is not well served by inflammatory statements, wild hyperbole, and political gamesmanship.
The cause of protecting medicare will be best served if we can act today to control the deficit while maintaining the principles and the high health standards which have made our system the envy of the world.
I mentioned earlier that Canadians are spending close to $60 billion each year on health care. We are second in the world in the percentage of our GNP that we devote to it. But there is evidence that our large expenditures have not brought us the greatest possible return on our investment. Japan, for example, spends less at 6.8 per cent of GNP and yet they have better life expectancy
rates than we do. Their infant mortality rates are 5 per 1,000 live births versus 7.9 for Canada. The issue is not whether we are putting enough money into health, it is whether we are using the money we have as effectively as possible. In many cases the answer to that question is that we are not.
We know that elderly Canadians with chronic problems are being kept in expensive acute care hospital beds because we have not developed less expensive, more effective options. We know that hospital stays are longer in Canada than in other western industrialized countries when both the procedures and the outcomes are virtually identical. We know that the number of doctors is growing three times as fast as the population. Most importantly, we know that it is infinitely cheaper and wiser to prevent injury and disease than it is to treat them once they have occurred.
The fact that we are not providing health services as efficiently as we might has a very real impact, not only in the quality of care we provide, but also on our ability to provide other services. Every dollar that is spent on health care is a dollar that is not spent on education, on job creation programs, on reducing illiteracy or poverty or preventing disease.
There is no reason to think that we can reverse the situation in the immediate future but there are changes taking place within our society that will bring new pressures to bear on our system.
We should judge our system not only in terms of its present strengths and weaknesses but also in terms of its ability to deal with new challenges such as an aging population, the surfacing of new diseases such as AIDS, and a constantly changing technology. Seen from this perspective, our system is far from perfect, and if it is to meet these challenges on a limited budget, improvements wil have to be made. The Canadian medicare system was the result of a consensus. A great deal of compromise and co-operation by the federal government and the provinces was necessary to get where we are now. Future challenges will require us to rediscover that spirit of co-operation and sharing.
March 19, 1991



We need to allocate our funds to prevent health problems before they arise, so that we make better use of services in the community and so we adopt only those technologies which are efficient and cost-effective and which produce real improvements to a patient's length and quality of life.
Some people argue that we should simply transfer all of the federal money to the provinces and give them carte blanche to spend without restriction.
I do not believe that it would be desirable for Canadians to do so.
For example, Preston Manning, the Leader of the Reform Party of Canada, believes the federal government should tax away the money from federal taxpayers, give it to the provinces and then have no say whatsoever in setting national standards. He is suggesting it simply hand over $14 billion with no strings attached. To my mind, that money gives Canadians 14 billion reasons to expect that the federal government should maintain the principles of medicare.
In the cold, hard language of dollars and cents, the argument is both logical and sound. If you invest money you have a right to say how that money is spent.
I believe the case for national standards is built on more than just an economic right born of a sizeable financial commitment. It goes much deeper than that. Canadians see these standards as a fundamental right of citizenship, one that reflects qualities and principles that are quintessentially Canadian: a belief in treating all people with dignity and equality; a commitment to fairness and justice; a conviction that economic freedom and a market economy are not inconsistent with caring and compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves.
By all means, let us debate today whether MPs still support medicare. We can even debate what the federal share of medicare should be. Most important, it is time for straight talk with Canadians about where that money is coming from, whether it can be spent more effectively and what share of our national wealth we are prepared to put into health care.
Sadly, answers to those questions were missing when my hon. friend from Winnipeg spoke in defence of his motion earlier today. Canadians have a right to answers
Supply
to those questions to as subsequent Liberal and NDP members rise to speak.
Canadians are watching this debate and they are expecting much more from each of us than cynical promises that we will simply spend more of their money without having to worry about where it is coming from. They are too sophisticated to be fooled by political show games.
Those who love Canada's social programs must do more than simply love them to death. Just as we know you cannot spend yourself rich, we know that year after year of uncontrolled deficits will not make our social programs stronger; they can only threaten those programs' very existence.
That is the issue before the House today. The young people of Canada in particular ask for honesty from all of us when explaining how we propose to deal with these issues. It is not enough any more for this generation to continue to spend today and to simply send the bills to our kids. Already that debt of over $15,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada stalks the next generation of Canadians. It is time for us today to deal with that issue.
In the hours remaining in today's debate, let us put aside political posturing and let us have straight answers to these important questions.
Canadians have a right to expect no less.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the minister speak of the need for honesty in government and I challenge the government to live up to that call.
Speaking of honesty, I have here a write-up from the Winnipeg Free Press which says that apparetly there is a secret Statistics Canada study. The article says the report may not be revealed yet in public but that it exists, and that 44 per cent of Canada's colossal $400 billion national debt is due to tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, and that another 50 per cent is caused by the compounding growth of interest payments applied on interest. Only 6 per cent can be attributed to living beyond our means.
On this point, my question to the minister is: Is it true that there is such a Statistics Canada study and would he table that report in the House of Commons?

March 19, 1991
Supply
Referring to the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, which says "Medicare still lives and death is not imminent", I would say that in fact even the editorial, if you read between the lines, is truly concerned about the health of medicare.
In terms of creative proposals, I would challenge the minister today to undertake a commitment to this House, if he has not already done so, to look at the report by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Is There a Crisis?, released in June of last year, which examined the accessibility to hospital services. Has he had the time to study this document, and what is he prepared to tell the House today in response to the many recommendations incorporated in this document, including the creation of a national health care resource plan?
Those are my comments and specific questions and I would like the hon. minister to kindly provide this House with the appropriate answers.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to what he called a secret report within Statistics Canada concerning the national debt. If such a secret report exists, it is a secret to me as well.
I very much appreciate my hon. friend raising the question because it gives me the opportunity to challenge him. He mentioned that a certain percentage of the national debt burden we have each year is coming from compounding interest on the national debt.
The obvious question this begs is: Who was in office as the national debt was driven up and as we found that year after year the national debt was being added to?
If you take a look at the period from 1984 to 1991, you will find that the government during that period generated sufficient funds to pay for all of its ongoing expenses. Increases in the national debt since that time have come as a result of compounding interest payments on the national debt.
The hon. member attempts to dismiss this as being unimportant or somehow irrelevant. The point is that today the first 35 cents out of every dollar that comes from Canadians' tax funds goes just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is before we have a penny for pensions, before we have a penny for medicare, and before we have a penny for assistance to the poor.
We see that figure continuing to grow. The real challenge we all face in this debate today is to be honest with Canadians and say whether or not we are prepared today to make the commitment to turn that around.
We will be spending over $40 billion this year on interest payments on the national debt. That is more than we have in the whole budget of National Health and Welfare. Imagine what we could do for health care in Canada if that money were available instead of going for interest payments on the national debt. Imagine what we could do for the poor, for illiteracy, for aid to refugees, for the defence of Canada, or for a whole range of other programs that we in this House believe in.
We cannot because that money is going to pay interest payments on the national debt.
The government has made its position clear; that figure must be brought down. We cannot allow Canada's social programs to continue to be threatened by an increasing debt load which each year reduces the amount of money available to the federal government to pay for these important services.
My hon. friend says that the Winnipeg Free Press believes there are challenges facing medicare. Indeed, so do I. Should all Canadians be concerned? Yes, all Canadians should take an interest in their national system. What we see are pressures on the system which challenge it around the world. If we are to preserve our system of medicare, it is important that we adapt to change and not simply live in the past.
The hon. member cites a Senate subcommittee report; yes I have had a chance to take a look at that. He asked me how I respond to it. I respond to that and to the issues he raises today in this way: It is important for all Canadians to set aside partisanship and to come together for a fundamental discussion on the role of health care and the promotion of health in our society.
We must ask ourselves questions concerning the percentage of our Gross National Product we are prepared to consecrate simply for the delivery of health care services, and how we want to use our moneys in the future most effectively. We must take tough decisions in some cases, tough decisions which were not recommended by the hon. member opposite. We must sit down and work together with all the stakeholders: the hospitals, the professionals, the scientists, governments and

March 19, 1991

consumers of health services to ensure that our system remains strong and improved for future generations.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker I wonder if the minister could identify the speaker who said the following: "The Progressive Conservative Party is in favour of quality medicare, universal medicare delivered to our citizens. The problem arises because of unilateral and arbitrary cuts by the federal government to the provinces which are charged with footing the bill."
I have another quote from the same person: "National health care is not a political issue. You are entitled to the same kind of quality service irrespective of the place of residence. That may mean higher than 50 per cent."
In cases such as northern British Columbia, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the federal share would likely be higher than 50 per cent. I will not even bother to test his memory regarding who said this; it was of course the Prime Minister in 1983.
What has happened to change the Prime Minister's mind in the last four or five years when he talks about not only a commitment to medicare, but a commitment to returning to the 50-50 funding formula?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member treats the debate on medicare as if it were a trivia quiz. It is something considerably more profound than that.
The hon. member raised questions with regard to the federal share of medicare, particularly in have not regions of Canada. He will be aware of the fact that the system was changed in 1977 to move to block funding under EPF. My friend from Winnipeg overlooked the fact that it was done at that time.
He will also be aware that in addition to funds transferred to the provinces under EPF, the federal government continues to transfer funds under equalization, which are designed expressly to ensure that have not regions of the country receive extra money to enable them to provide the level of services available in other areas of the country.
A good share of that equalization money can be used by those provinces in their health care system if they choose to do so. Because of the fact that the delivery of health care services is the responsibility of the provinces constitutionally in Canada, it is a decision which they take.
Supply
The federal government continues to make a key contribution to financing of health care in Canada; through EPF alone this year, some $14 billion. Again, the question which comes back to all of us, including my hon. friend opposite, is: Is it the position of our political parties that the share of the Gross National Product to health care can and should continue to grow without constraint, or should we be taking a look at the system and asking ourselves whether we can use the money more wisely?
If their answer is that it is time we begin to look at our priorities, then it is incumbent on members opposite to spell out those priorities in this debate, and not to play shell games with something as important as Canada's health care system.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to be able to enter into the discussion in this House concerning medicare.
I would like to start off with disagreeing with my hon. friend who says that this is not a partisan issue. I think health care is very much a partisan issue. This is a place where it should be discussed on that basis. If he means partisanship by the different political parties, there will be different philosophies, different priorities, different points of view and different records when it comes to the support of medicare.
We in the New Democratic Party are not afraid to be partisan, to set out what our record is, and what our priorities and points of view are. We are not afraid to contrast the Progress Conservative Party and the Liberal Party.
It is very important that people have a historical understanding of what has happened to national medicare. National medicare was really started in Saskatchewan by Tommy Douglas. It was the New Democratic Party and its predecessor, the CCF, which was willing to take the initiative to stand firm in spite of difficulties with the medical profession and to introduce a universal government-sponsored medical program.
In 1964 there was the Hall royal commission which I think gave a blueprint for Canada's national medicare which was brought in in 1966.1 would like to point out it was brought in when there was a minority government, when the Liberals needed the support of the New

March 19, 1991
Supply
Democratic Party in order to continue to govern. That In the early eighties even the Liberals started to was one of the prices the Liberals paid; the introduce of renege on their agreements under the block funding national medicare.	program.
Medicare started on certain principles: universality, portability, public administration. It was also based on a partnership between the federal and provincial governments; a cost shared partnership in which the federal government, using its spending power, would give to the provinces 50 per cent of what they were spending on medicare. There has been an erosion of that partnership and of the principle.
I think it is important to document as to where this erosion started. It started most dramatically as soon the Liberals got a majority government. By 1975 the Liberals were determined to back away from their commitment of a 50-50 partnership.
I will refer to some of the budget of the then Minister of Finance in the Liberal government in 1975. It reminds me of, and I would have sworn it was, the current finance minister. It states: "The government proposes to set an example of restraint in this regard by imposing strict controls over activities and programs. All are directed to bring outlays under more effective control to slow down the rate of growth this year and into the future. Our target of cuts this fiscal year is $1 billion".
He goes on to say: "under the Act the federal government must give five years notice before the present agreement can be terminated and new arrangements undertaken. I therefore wish to announce that the government will give immediate notice of its informal intention to undertake these steps". That was the notice to get out of it. It was not done by a Conservative government. It was done by a Liberal government. That was the beginning of the erosion of the 50-50 partnership, right there.
The introduction of block funding in 1977 came out of that. The federal government had limited transfer payments and it forced upon the provinces block funding in which it was saying: "We will give you so much money and you are on your own". That was the basis on which future governments could then unilaterally pull out.
They did it by withdrawing the revenue guarantee. They unilaterally withdrew the revenue guarantee, and it cost the provinces $1.2 billion a year in lost revenue directed toward health care. That $1.2 billion is an escalating figure because it cuts off the base. At the same time, they attacked other parts of the transfer by the six and five, which was more specifically directed to post-secondary education but had the cumulative effect of the moneys being directed toward health care.
What we have here is the example that the Liberals would have done the same thing as the Tories have done if they had only continued in power. They set the basis and the agenda. It is the Liberals who made the legislation possible. It is the Liberals who started the whole erosion of health care.
When the Tories came into power we got the 1986 budget with its freezing of the transfer payments to GNP minus 2 per cent, the 1990-91 budget and Bill C-96 which froze the transfer payments, and this budget in 1991-92 which extends that over a long period of time. What has happened is that the Conservative government only did what the Liberals taught it how to do. It may have learned to do it a little better, to cut the transfer payments a little more effectively and a little deeper, but it only followed what its good teachers the Liberals taught it.
We have to take a look at the effect of these cumulative cutbacks started by the Liberals and carried on by the Conservatives. Prior to the 1991-92 budget the parliamentary library documented the loss in revenue to the provinces. It was a cumulative loss in revenue of $22 billion. With this budget the estimates now are that there will be a little over $29 billion in lost revenue. We have to take a look at what this means to a number of provinces, particularly some of the have not provinces where there is a tremendous erosion of their ability to provide health care.
The loss of $29 billion also means that the federal government is no longer anywhere near that 50 per cent figure. The figures before this budget indicate that the
March 19, 1991

federal government is now contributing only 37 per cent both through the tax points and the cash transfers and that the provinces are in fact picking up 63 per cent.
Another thing that has happened is that the cash transfer payments to the provinces have been going down. The Library of Parliament documents again show that they have been going down dramatically, and the projections are that they will cease totally as early as 1995-96 in Quebec and 1997-98 in Ontario and be completely finished in the early part of the next century.
For a long time the federal government said that this was not going to happen, to start with. Then it said that it did not matter, but in its own budget it admitted that without that cash transfer payment it could not enforce the Canada Health Act.
Therefore it is proposing to amend other acts: the Financial Administration Act which has to do with equalization payments. The problem is that the three big provinces-Alberta, B.C. and Ontario-do not get equalization payments. The biggest pot of money that they would then have to start holding back would be from the Canada Assistance Plan. It would very difficult for them to justify the holding back of moneys designed for child welfare services, child abuse or income support programs because a province did not comply with national health care standards. We have not seen any great enthusiasm on the part of any federal government to enforce national health care standards.
I turn my attention now to some other things that must looked at when one looks at people's priorities, commitment and record in terms of medicare. We should look at what the provincial Liberal governments are doing? What is the Liberal commitment to medicare, when we look at the track record of Liberal provincial governments?
First of all let us take a look at Newfoundland. That province has closed 360 acute care beds this week, including closing acute care hospital service in Port aux Basques, which means that community must drive three hours to receive basic health care. There is no question of accessibility any more.
They are not living up to the spirit of the Canada Health Act. There is no accessibility. They have laid off 300 nurses or 10 per cent of the nursing staff. Is this the Liberal's idea of maintaining national health care standards?
Supply
Jack Harris, a New Democratic member of that legislature, asked Premier Clyde Wells if he would make the provision of national medicare and the federal spending cuts a national crusade and go across the country in order to save medicare. Of course, Premier Wells declined by saying it was not a priority for him. He talks about trying to save national unity, and one of the major components of national unity is our health care system: a national, portable health care system that is equally available to all people across Canada. He is not prepared to try to make sure it is not eroded.
Let us take the Liberal government in the province of RE.I. Unilaterally it denies all women in that province access to a fundamental, basic health care service: abortions. That is the Liberals way of deciding universality and accessibility to health care. The Liberal government simply says: "It is not available, period". Is that a commitment to a national, portable, universal, accessible health care system? Is that the Liberal record? Is that the Liberal philosophy?
In the province of New Brunswick the Minister of Finance is saying: "Of course we cannot comply with the Canada Health Act and national standards. We do not have the will. We do not have the means". Basically he is simply saying: "We will no longer comply with the Canada Health Act". There is no commitment to national standards.
In Nova Scotia, not one of the four remaining provinces that have Liberal governments, what does it say? Minister of Health George Moody said: "If people want certain levels of care, maybe they want to pay an extra $25 or $30". He could not rule out that there would be more and higher co-pay charges to consumers, user fees. What is the record of the Liberal government in that province?
The Liberal Government of the Province of Quebec is on record as saying that it wants the federal government out of funding of national medicare so that it can introduce user fees. It is even willing to forgo some of the revenue, because it wants to introduce user fees.
What we have is a Liberal record that relates to how they are the responsible ones for eroding medicare at the federal level. Of course we can look at the provincial

March 19, 1991
Supply
level and decide what is the role of the provincial governments in how they interpret national health care standards. At the first opportunity they have simply backed away from them.
The Prime Minister was very much in favour and supportive of medicare when he was in opposition. He indicated that the federal government needed to maintain and restore its 50 per cent funding of medicare.
Let us not have blinders on and think there are not problems which the health care system in this countiy must address. Changes are taking place in health care across this country in which the federal government has to take leadership. It must work with the provinces to deal with them. I want to spend just two or three minutes outlining what some of the problems are.
Before I do, I just want to correct something I may have inadvertently said a minute ago, namely that the Nova Scotia government is a Liberal government. I believe that is a Conservative government, but I have difficulty telling the difference between Liberal and Conservative governments. When one comes from B.C. one has great difficulty because in B.C. we have this amalgamation of Liberals and Tories and they are called Socreds. We have difficulty sometimes distinguishing between a Liberal and a Tory, particularly at the provincial level.
There are three or four things that I think the federal government has to show some leadership in, in working with the provinces to deal with medicare. I see my time is starting to run down, so I will just mention them.
First is the changing demographics in this country with the aging population, where increasingly people are living longer and the elderly rely more upon our health care system. We have to resolve that by developing community based alternatives to acute, institutionalized care. That is something we all must do.
The whole question of high technology is expensive, often unproven, and sometimes leads to heroic interventions that do not either prolong the life expectancy, the comfort or the functioning of the person. We have to start looking at and dealing with when we actually use high-tech constructively to improve the health and functioning of people and when we simply say: "Look, it
is not beneficial to the patient or to the total community to spend that amount of money".
Another whole area we have to look at is the question of personnel. There are indications we are training far too many physicians, that they are concentrated in urban centres, and that the rural areas of this country are not being served.
I want to go back to the Prime Minister's statements in 1983 wherein he talked about the need to restore the 50 per cent cost sharing, the partnership. He was quite passionate about it and said that was what was needed to restore the viability of medicare in this country.
Because of that, I think I would agree with him. Therefore I would propose the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulk-ley Valley, British Columbia:
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
"specifically its original commitment to restore 50 per cent federal funding for provincial health care costs".
If we are to have a commitment to reaffirm our commitment to medicare, we should do so in concrete terms, not simply in hollow rhetoric.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my hon. friend. What particularly peaked my curiosity was his reference during the course of his speech to concerns that he had about the maintenance of standards under the Canada Health Act.
He made considerable point of the fact that the balance is shifting in Canada between transfers to the provinces in the form of tax points as opposed to transfers in the form of cash. He made it clear that he would prefer that those transfers take place in the form of cash.
What was most interesting though to me was he followed that by talking about the government's proposal that as we shift to tax points away from cash, we would be able to protect the standards in the Canada Health Act by being able to attach other funds transferred to the province. He attacked that proposal.
My question for my hon. friend is veiy simple. It is not what would be the optimal method of enforcing standards but his party, as will all members of this House, will be forced to deal on a yes or no basis with a bill which
March 19, 1991

will give to the federal government the ability to protect national standards by withholding other funds from provinces. How will his party vote?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of how we protect national standards when the moneys are no longer transferred for health care is going to be a very difficult one. Our proposal is to reinstate the type of funding so that they then have moneys to withhold.


Henry Perrin Beatty: How will you vote on the present bill?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I cannot speculate as I have not seen the bill. The minister wants me to commit myself to how I am going to vote on a bill. I do not know what the bill is. I do not know whether it is something that we would support.
We would support the reinstatement of the 50-50 funding, which means that there will be cash transfers going to the provinces. If they then do not live up to the Canada Health Act, the government has some moneys to hold. It is directly related to health care.
There are two aspects to this issue of enforcing national health care standards. There is one that the minister seems to keep looking at. He says: "We are going to call the tune even if we are no longer paying the piper. We are going to insist that provinces provide services even if we have pulled the rug out from underneath them in terms of money. We are going to say that they have to meet this national standard, but we are going to turn our back on them in terms of financing it".
What we have right now is not surprising. The financially disadvantage provinces are now backing away from provision of medicare that would meet national standards, because they are the ones who are financially under the most pressure. They do not have high employment. Let us take a look at Newfoundland. It has very high unemployment. They do not have the large numbers of people working. They do not have the industrial base of B.C., Alberta or Ontario to raise tax revenue. Yes, they are more dependent on transfer payments including transfer payments for medicare.
The federal government is saying to them very nicely: "You have to meet these standards, but we are going to wash our hands of any responsibility for your funding of them". I say to the minister that he cannot have it both
Supply
ways. He can bring in all the punitive legislation he wants, but if persons cannot afford to meet those standards it is going to be almost impossible to force them.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, when I was listening to my colleague from the New Democratic Party, I almost felt that we were in government. Of course we will form the next government.
He kept attacking the provincial Liberal ministers across the country. I ask my colleague from the New Democratic Party, since when has it become a virtue that you criticize the victims and not the victimizer? Have you not said during debate in the past that the federal government has been passing the deficit burden to the provinces, and now you say you are blaming those people, those ministers? Mr. Speaker, this is a classic example of double-speak.
Then he alluded to Ontario. I was glad. But he did not say that the Ontario government is now run by the New Democratic Party. Here is a headline from a newspaper: "Ontario looks to copy Quebec's new health plan". Part of this plan, as the member indicated, is the utilization of user fees. Are we going to see the NDP government of Ontario apply a user fee? I tell you, when the NDP provincial government of Ontario does just that, we will fight it.
I would, therefore, like to ask the member if he has spoken to his counterpart in his own party in Ontario.
My second comment is in terms of history because the member alluded to it, Mr. Speaker, that is, that we have to have an historical understanding of medicare and its documentation. I would like to put on the record, very briefly, that the first stage in Canada's national health insurance known as medicare, came with the unanimous approval of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Service Act of 1957 by the House of Commons. Actually, the earliest record is before Confederation in 1832. Medicare as a national idea at the federal level, as a political issue, occurred in 1919 at the Liberal Party convention.
In 1939 we had the Rowell-Sirois report and then in 1947 Tommy Douglas tried to implement his program in Saskatchewan, and finally did so in 1962. In 1966 it was the Liberal government that introduced the medicare act

March 19, 1991
Supply
of 1966 and modernized it in 1984-1985. I would like to set the record straight. If we would like to study the history of medicare we must study it thoroughly so that we can tell Canadians how it has evolved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have to recognize the hon. member for Surrey North for two minutes to answer.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that I have spoken to the New Democratic Party minister of health for Ontario and I look forward in the next few months to being able to speak with the New Democratic minister of health from British Columbia and the New Democratic minister of health from Saskatchewan.
When we get three or four of the provinces, which will represent 50 per cent of the population, being governed by New Democratic governments, then I think we may get a sense of the difference in priorities that those governments may set in terms of health care.
I could get into a long historical debate with my fellow colleague about the position the Liberal Party took on health care, particularly his reference to the early days. I have a copy of the Liberal platform from 1921 and I could have sworn it was Michael Wilson speaking because it says: "In so far as may be practical, having regards for Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, old age, and disabilities". It includes all of the cop-out words "as may be practical", "having regard to Canada's financial position". That was in 1921. The Liberals never even bothered to put it into their election platform until 1949 and that was only because by then the CCF was starting to make inroads into the traditional Liberal support.
Our medical system in Canada is under tremendous pressure, and it is under pressure largely because of escalating costs at the provincial level and the withdrawal of financial support from the federal government.
I have enjoyed the discussion. I hope Canadians have been listening because I think it is important for them to realize that the only party which has always been firmly behind national medicare is the New Democratic Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair finds the amendment moved by the New Democratic Party member in order.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the House that we would like the next set of Liberal speeches to be 10 minutes and five minutes for comments and questions, with the permission of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House agree with that motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Mississauga East for 10 minutes followed by five minutes of questions and comments.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, since 1967 Canadians have been comforted by the knowledge that they could obtain the high quality health care services they need, irrespective of their ability to pay. Every Canadian, whether rich or poor, has protection from the medical cost of sudden illness. Of the current generation of Canadians, there is no one who has been turned away from a medical institution because of his or her inability to pay.
We have always believed there is a common starting line for free enterprise and competition; that everyone would be guaranteed an equal level of medical care; that someone's failure to compete in the business world would not impede one's access to hospital or professional care. Canada is a nation where a bad credit rating is not a health hazard.
It has been suggested that the U.S. offers a two-tiered health care system, one for the rich and one for the poor. In reality, it has a fabulous system for the rich, a mediocre system for the middle class and no system at all for 37 million of the poor.
Canadians today are beginning to see their own much-coveted medicare system looking more like its predatory counterpart south of the border. Those that have recently been ill or hospitalized will know that the quality of care in Canada has been deteriorating since 1984.

The lack of funding is such that the number of beds is dropping steadily. In January, one of my constituents had
March 19, 1991

a heart attack and had to lie on a stretcher for nearly a week. Why? Because of a chronic lack of beds.
Canadians are all aware of reports that at any given time, more than 1,000 people are on the waiting list for bypass surgery in Toronto.
In Quebec, people may wait up to eight or nine months for a bed. In Toronto, at the Hospital for Sick Children, 40 young patients had to wait up to eight months for open-heart surgery. Why? Because scheduled operations were constantly postponed due to a lack of beds. In most large cities, emergency wards often lack the capacity to take care of new patients. Why? Because of a constant lack of beds.

Emergency rooms in major cities often have no capacity to handle new patients because they do not have enough beds into which previous patients could be transferred. Wealthy Canadians, are choosing to go to the United States where they can receive immediate treatment for immediate cash.
It is small wonder that Canada's medicare system has fallen ill, for it is has been so under-nourished since this government came to office in 1984. At that time Canadians took comfort in the Prime Minister's declaration that "medicare was a sacred trust". They now realize that they should have put their trust in someone else. Some may even remember the present finance minister saying in 1982 that cuts to Established Programs Financing could have disastrous effects on hospital funding and on their operation. He went on to preach:
Let us not make hospitals a battleground between the federal government and the provincial governments. Let us solve those problems not on the backs of hospitals, let us solve those problems outside of that arena.
When the minister took his new seat on the other side of the House, it is obvious he left his social conscience behind. Perhaps on election night he did not just see stars but saw stripes as well.
The Canadian medicare system has become the favourite target of Tory attacks since they took office in 1984. Cuts to Established Programs Financing have resulted in the inevitable destruction of the five principles of medicare. Universality, portability, accessibility, public admin-
Supply
istration, and comprehensiveness will all be an historical footnote if the Wilson fiscal knife is not dulled.
The spirit of the government's free trade agreement is embodied in its current medicare policy. We all remember American objections to our social program subsidies during the free trade negotiations. We also remember that the American Medical Association spent a great deal to dissuade the U.S. from ever adopting any kind of universal medicare.
According to polls, 60 to 80 per cent of the American public want the U.S. to copy the world-renowned system to which Canadians have become accustomed. The AMA is desperate to protect its $600 billion a year business. Our Canadian example is the AMA's greatest enemy.
Under the guise of fiscal restraint, the ministers of this government continue to divest themselves of programs that even they once called sacred trusts. Most cherished of all social programs, medicare is now certainly under the knife on the Tory trade table.
While inept on most accounts, this government has excelled in the art of camouflaging its real agenda, thus being able to slowly divest the federal contribution to medicare. In 1984 the Prime Minister boasted that Canada is open for business. Sadly, we find ourselves in the midst of a fire sale, the value of our social programs being marked down year after year.
In order to avoid public wrath, the government is gradually and deceptively passing the vast majority of costs on to the provinces. Continuing to promote the reduced deficit they have failed to achieve for the past six years, medicare and other social programs continue to be scrapped for parts. Instead of investing resources and devising policies to create wealth in this country, this government has chosen instead to sell off our social assets.
As the party that introduced national medicare to Canada, our commitment is as strong today as it was in 1966. With any system, improvements must be made. This requires innovation, foresight and direction. We do not advocate that money be mindlessly spent throughout the system.
On February 26, 1991 the finance minister introduced a budget telling Canadians they must pay their own way. We have been paying his way for the last six years.

March 19, 1991
Supply
This government tells us that the only way to bring down the deficit is to shred our social programs. The way to get out of debt is by creating wealth, by investing in people, in education, in technology, in research and in jobs. The 1.5 million unemployed Canadians are willing to make a contribution to Canada, and this government has failed to give them that opportunity.
The Canadian medicare system is increasingly mirroring the American model. Soon we may expect to see government ads for an American Express medicare card: "Don't get sick without it!"
The polls show that Canadians are wise to this government's tactics, and they will not be fooled again. Today we are asking the government to reaffirm the longstanding federal commitment to publicly funded universal medicare on a national level.
Canadians are watching their response from the sacred trust people. Medicare is one of our national treasures that Canadians will one day reclaim from our Tory pawnbrokers.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's discussion of national medicare.
Basically, I have two questions on which I would like her to comment. First of all, could she explain why the Liberal finance minister in 1975 pushed through a cap on medicare which led to the block funding formula of 1977. This was the backing away from the basic concept of 50-50 sharing of medicare with the provinces. Why did the Liberals and the finance minister do that?
Second, why in the early 1980s, did they back away from their own formula of block funding to the tune of $1.2 billion a year in erosion of payments to the provinces? Why did the Liberals do that? Why are their cuts different titan the Tory cuts to medicare? They are about the same. It was $1.2 billion in the early 1980s as opposed to $1.1 billion by the hon. Minister of Finance.
Third, what is her reaction to the proposal by the Quebec Liberal government to introduce user fees?


Albina Guarnieri: I am very baffled by this member's obsession with history and the past. I am more interested-


Mr. Boyer:: We expect better than that from you.


Albina Guarnieri: Unlike the member who is cackling right now, I am more interested in focusing my attention on what is being done right now and where we will be in the future. I think it would be more useful if we would put our industry into reviewing what is going on in this government, rather than the obsession with Liberal days that this colleague shares with members opposite.
I am more interested in reviewing the earlier assessment of the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he showed righteous indignation that Liberal members would put forward a motion asking the government to reaffirm its commitment to medicare. I fail to see the dishonour in members opposite voting with us on a motion that we have heard a lot of talk about which says that the Conservatives support medicare. We want to know, and Canadians want to know, exactly what are this government's intentions.


Patrick Boyer: You are playing a parliamentary game.


Albina Guarnieri: No. We heard earlier that the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that we should put aside partisan politics. The motion is a good one. Admit it, and you will be a better person for it.


Patrick Boyer: It's a non-confidence debate.


Albina Guarnieri: I do not mind the debate. I am happy to stay all day if I have to.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, in an article I have here, denies that he ever made an allegation that the U.S. system has one system for the rich and another for the poor.
Does he believe that the poor in the United States have equal access to health care as the rich? If he does, will he accept that he is alone in that belief?
The minister says that the government is increasing the total level of funding by 1.2 per cent. He knows that in Ontario alone, it will rise 12 per cent just to maintain the same level of care as last year. Once again, we are asking the government to simply reaffirm its support. If it is not prepared to do that, it should resign.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
March 19, 1991

At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, many challenges face Canadians today. None is more compelling than the challenge to make Canada a society that is proud of its diversity, a society that is committed to the equality of all its citizens, a society, quite simply, that is free of discrimination.
The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to be celebrated this week, is a time to review our successes and failures in combatting racism and racial discrimination in Canadian society. It is a time to renew our efforts in combatting this social ill.
The Government of Canada, through the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, works in partnership with key institutional sectors, such as community associations, unions, police departments, educators, the media and municipal governments, to highlight the importance of March 21 and the need to work together to end racism.
I am convinced that the will to make Canada a more just and equal society is present wherever Canadian values are held in high esteem. Ours is a country in search of lasting unity, and we can regard March 21 as a central building block in this process.



FORESTRY

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, the debate over national unity is having adverse effects on the economy of this country. The surtax of our softwood lumber export provides a glaring example.
The Americans, lovers of fair trade when they are beaten at free trade, claimed that our stumpage fees were too low and amounted to an unfair subsidy. Our response to this was to levy a 15 per cent export tax on



S. 0. 31

[Stage Direction]
our producers before the Americans could, instead of fighting this ridiculous claim.
I wonder if the Americans will claim that Mexico's cheap labour costs constitute an unfair subsidy when they conclude free trade talks with them. Better still, perhaps Canada should claim that the Americans are subsidizing all their industries because they have almost no social programs and, thus, are not on a level playing field with us.
Whatever the case, the point should be clear: By the U.S. meddling in our forestry practices and having their way with us, our sovereignty is becoming compromised.
We must balance the interests of all the regions of this country and build a consensus to forge ahead in our efforts to revoke this softwood surtax and strengthen our economy.
We must resolve the question of national unity and stand together; for today it is forestry, tomorrow who knows what it will be?

Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, when the federal Minister of Finance refused to exempt books from the GST we said he was wrong. Now, as we predicted, the Saskatchewan provincial government is expanding its retail sales tax and is also refusing to exempt books.
This is shameful. The combined taxes will lead to fewer books being purchased and fewer books being read, particularly by young people. The provincial and federal governments must remove this hurtful tax from books immediately.
In my own constituency, the Lakeland Library Region reports that the two new taxes will cost them $20,000 in 1991. That represents one-half the book budget for their resource centre or one-third the budget for their 39 smaller branch libraries.
Regional public libraries provide equitable access to information and reading materials to rural residents. They are already trying to cope with decreased revenues. Unnecessary financial pressures like these regressive taxes that can be removed must be removed. The federal and provincial governments have no mandate to tax reading, literacy and learning.

March 19, 1991



CANADA-U.S. AGREEMENT ON AIR QUALITY

Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-U.S. agreement on air quality is the result of the very special relationship between Messrs. Reagan, Mulroney and Bush.
Since the two heads of State met in March 1985, striking progress has been achieved by this government with respect to pollution. Thanks to the co-operation of the federal government, provincial governments, industry and environmental groups, the Canadian program to control acid rain was successfully implemented.
The signing of the important Canada-U.S. agreement on air quality is a milestone in the history of environmental protection. This bilateral agreement establishes a framework for Canada and the United States to deal effectively with present and future air pollution problems involving both countries.
Mr. Speaker, this historic agreement sets forth clearly and concisely the commitment of both governments to dealing with the problem of air pollution.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, today a country is defined by its communications, by how and what it communicates. This distinguishes us on the global map. In this light, the CBC has a unique and dramatic role to play, providing the cross-country links that truly connect and reflect all of Canada and all Canadians from sea to sea to sea. With the exploding spectrum of program choices available all around us, today, more than ever, we must have that distinctive Canadian voice.
The CBC is more than a bottom line on a balance sheet. CBC is measured in terms of how it reflects local ideas and national ideals. Canada is rooted in the realities of its small local communities and its regions through their singers and performers, their values and stories. This then becomes Canada's national voice.
The CBC is critically wounded in its ability to ensure the development of Canada's national personality by the Conservative Party's unconscionable cuts to the CBC. This is why 11 members of the national Liberal caucus care enough to express their views today at the CRTC hearings on why a strong, local, regional and national CBC is needed now more than ever. It is a priority at this sensitive juncture in our political history as a nation.
The government should review its support for our national public broadcaster. Eleven cents per Canadian per day is very little for the cost of a bilingual radio and TV service across this land. I think it is worth at least that much to ensure that the hearts, minds and attitudes of our children and our future are that as distinct Canadians on the world map.



BANK OF CANADA

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it has been said in many commentaries that the middle class is dying in Canada. I think there is a real understanding now as to why that is happening. Last night, when he was before the Commons finance committee, the Governor of the Bank of Canada defended his salary and increases for his senior officials, saying that they needed the money to attract top people. He himself earns a salary which is between $168,000 and $253,000 a year. That is an $85,000 difference between the top and the bottom level.
How can Canadians expect any fairness if the people who earn the most in our society have deliberately set up rules supported by the present Conservative government, often implemented in the first place by previous Liberal governments, which create secrecy around the salaries which are much higher than those of ordinary Canadians? The secrecy is not there to defend a postal clerk who might be earning between $23,000 and $25,000 or a clerk in the federal government who might be earning between $23,000 and $26,000. This secrecy is set there to defend the deputy ministers, the political appointees and those who give advice to this government.
It is time to defend all Canadians. Make all government salaries public for all Canadians.



RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, two days from now on the first day of spring the world commemorates and reaffirms its commitment to the elimination of racial discrimination. We in Canada are especially enriched by the many races and cultures which comprise our population.
Our government has established the legislative framework for a society which should become free of racism; most notably, through such statutes as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Employment Equity Act and Canada's Multiculturalism Act.
There is still a sad reality, however, that racism and bigotry remain everyday facts of life. These demeaning attitudes violate the dignity of those they attack and they devastate the very fabric of our society.
It is time for each of us to recognize that diversity is the essence of Canadianism. It is the combination of tolerance, goodwill and respect for every citizen, regardless of race, language, colour or creed that makes us a distinctive society among the nations of the world. Multiculturalism is an asset that benefits every one of us, culturally, socially and economically.



DEBT SERVICING AND REDUCTION FUND

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter I sent to Mr. Wilson, the Minister of Finance, on March 7:
Mr. Minister,
The Budget you brought down on February 26 proposed to create a special fund into which will flow net GST revenues, plus the profits on the sale of Crown corporations that will be privatized and all private contributions.
All monies from the special fund will be used to pay off this country's enormous deficit.
Mr. Minister, I am enclosing a personal cheque for $100 which I would like to see applied to the deficit reduction fund. I hope many more Canadians will do likewise, and especially members of Parliament.
In addition to the taxes we pay, a joint effort is in order, and I am convinced that many Canadians would be willing to do their share.
Furthermore, members of the Government and Parliament will be
asked to accept a drop in income. I do so gladly, because I realize that
the economic situation demands it. Next December, I will be glad to
do so again.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to share with you an old Chinese saying: As the river returns to the sea, so what man gives comes back to him.

[.English)



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, our country was built and strengthened by communication links: rail, air, the post office and the national public broadcasting system.
During this perilous time when Canada seems to be slipping into a regional mentality, the CBC must provide a strong national voice and a sense of shared value and purpose.

Canada is a cultural mosaic that thrives on diversity. However, this diversity must be nurtured. If we do not know and do not understand our differences, whether they are geographical, cultural, social or economic, we lose our common goals as a nation.
Here in the National Capital Region, programming produced locally by English and French television networks has made it possible for Francophones and Anglophones in eastern Ontario and western Quebec to share what they have in common, to laugh and cry, and to live together in harmony.

CBC has helped us to show the country and each other we are more than a national capital. We are a vibrant community that is a microcosm of the nation.
The decision to axe local programming will diminish the important role of the CBC in our community and in all communities. Local programming is essential to Canadian unity, and we urge the government, which is busy dismantling our national institutions, to listen.



ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY

Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, small business in south-western New Brunswick got some welcome news this past weekend

March 19, 1991
[DOT]:fe. *S't >
with the announcement that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is setting up an office in the city of Saint John.
New Brunswick has 31 per cent of the region's employment and has netted 37 per cent of the $658 million ACOA has committed between 1988 and 1990.
This should go a long way to generating a stronger working relationship between the agency and local business interests. It will ensure the region and the province will continue to benefit fully from the many programs available under the action programs.
There is no shortage of good ideas in south-western New Brunswick. By taking this action, ACOA is attempting to bring a greater focus on the special needs of the region.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, when the federal science minister appeared before the science and technology committee, he pretended that there was $1.5 billion in new R and D money, but later revealed that this referred to sub-inflationary budgetary increases over five years.
The minister then told 7,000 recipients of NSERC grants that many of them did not deserve the grant money. Today, we learn that one employee in 15 is interested in early retirement at NRC.
In fact, if everyone who wanted to quit were allowed to go, entire sections would be wiped out. This is how demoralized Canadian scientists are. They are sick and tired of a government which is destroying their mission, their grants and their jobs.
They are sick of watching R and D expenditures fall, and they are sick of watching the erosion of NSERC, NRC and the entire federal science structure. They are insulted when a minister who is supposed to be their advocate not only defends this sorry record, but obscures the real facts about funding levels and then adds insult to injury by kicking them while they are down.



AGRICULTURE

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, average farm incomes are expected to be extremely low in 1991 in this country, but this government is dragging its feet on the subject of helping farmers with their seeding programs. This is a recipe for disaster.
As far as prices are concerned, last year was a terrible one for producers of grain, oil seeds and fruits and vegetables. The result is that farmers need financial assistance to be able to seed their land.
Mr. Speaker, many producers have never faced cash flow problems of this magnitude.
As a result of government cutbacks, especially in support programs for 1991, we expect that total net farm income will be down 54 per cent. Our farmers have a right to know how the government will help them.



INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, this year again, thousands of Canadians will meet to take part in demonstrations throughout the country to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, on March 21.
This day is an important one, because discrimination still exists. Despite undeniable progress, Canadians have not yet managed to create a society that is consistently respectful of cultural, linguistic and religious differences.
We all have the same basic needs. We all need understanding, respect, friendship and equal opportunities, values that are essential to the survival of this country. And that is why racism, racial discrimination and racial prejudice must disappear in Canada.
Together we can build a society that is fairer and less racist.
March 19, 1991



CANADIAN COAST GUARD

Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: The Canadian Coast Guard inshore rescue program has existed for 14 years, providing both summer employment and a quick response prime research and rescue unit, but the latest budget threatens to change the entire character of the program.
It has been suggested that the qualifications necessary to work in the IRP will be eased in order to open the program up to career oriented summer employment plan jobs at a lower hourly rate and that the jobs will simply be opened up under a non-close up agreement, saving the ministry even more money per hour.
There are six IRP stations in Atlantic Canada, employing 36 students. They assist the RCMP and local authorities in the exercise of their duties. They conduct safety examinations; search for lost vessels; tows for vessels in danger and other distress situations.
These stations performed 250 rescues in 1990 from May until October and saved an estimated 30 lives.
The importance of this program and the need for trained and qualified personnel is clear. Therefore, I ask the Minister of Transport to carefully consider the Canadian and tourist safety and maintain the same high standards that the IRP has kept for 14 years.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Yesterday we heard in this House that the government intends to spend millions of dollars to send propaganda information to households across this country to sell this government's disastrous budget and the GST.
Today we learn, in a report tabled by an advisory committee to the government, the National Council of Welfare, that in fact this government is the first govern-
Oral Questions
ment in history to pull back from its basic commitment to the needs of the poor.
I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare why it is that his policies do not support those people who most need our help and why his government is pulling back from its basic commitment to the needs of the poor and the sick across this country.
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, just the opposite happens to be the case. What we are determined to do is to ensure that Canada's social programs are founded on a firm foundation.
I want to indicate to the hon. member that simply proposing that we continue to pile deficit upon deficit, debt upon debt, without any restriction in the future, is the single greatest threat to the existence of Canada's social services network.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is no wonder that the National Council on Welfare, the government's advisory body has said about the 1990 budget that it has reinforced the council's concerns about leaving social policy to the finance department. Is it not about time that the Minister of National Health and Welfare took his responsibilities?
I would like to ask him how he and his government can justify taking $865 million over the next two years out of the mouths of mothers and their children and those people on welfare benefits who most need the help. How can he justify an $865 million cut to those people who really need our help, the poor of this country?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is sincere when she claims to be concerned about Canada's children, she will be aware of the fact that every man, woman and child in this country has a debt in Ottawa of over $15,000. She may believe that the appropriate way to deal with Canada's children is for this generation to spend and for us to simply send the bill to our kids. On this side we do not believe so.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about food for poor children now living in Montreal, Quebec City, and Chicoutimi.

March 19, 1991
Oral Questions
I have a question for the Minister of National Health. If he really believes in the health of our children, why would he and his government implement this unfair policy over the next two years under which they are taking $865 million off the funds earmarked for poorer families only in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia? Why is he taking this kind of action against the children of Canada?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is the acting leader of her party. As such, one would expect that she would at least have some understanding of the subject that she raises.
She should be aware of the fact when she cites the province of Quebec that the restriction on the Canada Assistance Plan does not apply in the case of Quebec. It is totally unrestricted.


REVENUE CANADA
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. This question is about another of this government's inane economic policies.
Yesterday, in British Columbia, the Minister of National Revenue announced a program that actually encourages Canadians to shop in the United States. It amounts to a life in the fast lane program for a select group of shoppers who can pay an up-front fee and who have credit cards.
Why is the government putting into effect a new policy that will help the economies of Michigan, of Washington and of New York and has no new policies to help the economy of Canada, to help the economy of our own country?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has as usual only partially read the announcement of the Minister of National Revenue.
When the Minister of National Revenue announced this pilot yesterday, the Pace Program, he mentioned that in the fast lane there would be random checks, there
would be heavy fines, and there would be important sanctions against those who abuse the fast lane.
Therefore what the fast lane will do is make sure that Canadians now pay fully all their duties and taxes, something that did not happen under the previous government. Second, it will speed the flow of U.S. tourists into Canada. Third and most important, it will maybe encourage Canadians to shop in Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this program at this stage applies only to Canadians. Instead of being checked each time they cross the border, they will just throw a little card in a box. That does not sound too strict to me.
Statistics Canada has reported that the number of same day car trips to the United States in January jumped 15.2 per cent above the same month last year. Retail analyst, John Winter, speaking of this increase, said it was directly due to the GST. He went on to say:
This is bleak economic news for municipalities on the Canadian
side of the border. But it is bonanza days for merchants on the other
side.
Why does the government want to create an economic bonanza for merchants on the American side of the border rather than for those on the Canadian side? Has its policies not done enough damage already to merchants in our border communities?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would be the first person to stand up if we stopped every car for a half hour each and rifled through them. He would be the first one to complain.
The member also knows that the Retail Council of Canada asked us to come up with a scheme whereby we would start to collect fully all duties and taxes. This scheme allows that.
We have also been asked by thousands and thousands of tourist operators to make sure that the three-hour wait at this particular border crossing where we are doing the pilot is so long that American tourists are deciding not to come to Canada.
We are coming up with a scheme in which we can increase the flow and speed the flow as well as make sure that Canadians who return pay their fully duties and taxes.
March 19, 1991


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada, John Crow, has run a monetary policy that has taken Canada into a recession, yet last night he refused to say even what he was paid despite his immense power. He also refused to say if his bank employees would be affected by the public sector wage freeze.
Crow's salary has to be approved by cabinet. The salaries of everybody in this House are known in detail. Why is it that John Crow's salary should be privileged and secret?
Would the minister also tell us if in fact the Bank of Canada is subject, as it should be for fairness sake, to the public sector wage freeze if the rest of the public sector is supposed to be affected by it?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have communicated in a letter to Mr. Crow to discuss with him the application of the public sector wage policy. I can tell my hon. friend that the Bank of Canada will be subject to exactly the same rules as the Public Service will be in wages and salaries in the coming three-year period.
My hon. friend knows the policy that the government reached on salaries of senior public servants. We have set a range. The boards of directors of these organizations establish a level within that range which is subject to approval by the government, but the range is veiy clearly available and is subject to public knowledge.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the report by the National Council of Welfare which calls on the government to rescind its cap on CAP, its cutbacks in Canada Assistance Plan funding for the provinces of B.C., Alberta and Ontario, in which it states that it is no time for cuts to our safety net of last resort.
The minister of health has defended this cap by saying that we cannot send the bill for the deficit to our kids. Will the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell us why it is right to send the bill for the deficit to the 700,000 poor children who depend
Oral Questions
on the Canada Assistance Plan? Why is it right to send the bill to them for the deficit?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, at least this hon. member, unlike the hon. member for Hamilton East, knows which provinces the cap applies on.
The premise of his question is fundamentally wrong. It is not our intention to send the bill to the unemployed or to children in Canada. The restrictions, in terms of transfers to the provinces over the coming year, will amount to about one-half of one per cent of provincial revenues.
What we are asking the provinces to do is not to penalize the poor or not to penalize the disadvantaged, but rather to look at the other 99.5 per cent of their expenditures and to set priorities in exactly the same way as the federal government has had to do.


CORPORATE TAXATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, what we would suggest is that the government send the bill for the deficit to all the corporations which have been receiving tax breaks over the years.
In that respect, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance or the minister responsible for Statistics Canada whether the government is aware of the study done by Statistics Canada which shows that 44 per cent of Canada's debt is due to tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.
Apparently this study is so far a secret study. We want to know why it is a secret study, and we want to know when the government is going to release that study so that Canadians can see the big lie that exists behind this government's deficit reduction ideology and who is really at fault for the deficit.
Release that study, why don't you?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such study. My hon. friend has raised the question of tax preferences as it relates to corporations. I discussed these item by item in committee last week. I told him why the government has taken the position that if we followed the approach that the hon. member from Winnipeg is suggesting we should do, he would lose a lot of businesses in Winnipeg that

March 19, 1991
Oral Questions
would move down to the United States. It is the same in any part of the country.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend is talking about a previous question. If he wants to ask a question on that, I would be happy to respond to that as well.
* * %


HEALTH CARE
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In his budget the Minister of Finance cut $2.3 billion in cash transfers to provinces, much of which was for health care. This morning the minister said that he would compensate provinces with tax points.
Can the minister be frank with Canadians and tell this House today that tax points, particularly with the have not provinces, will not fully compensate for loss in cash?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very much in your hands. As the hon. member prefaced his questions saying that he was referring to a matter that was before the House in debate today, I am in your hands as to whether or not I should be responding to that question. I would be pleased to do so, although the convention in this House has been that matters addressed in debate are not dealt with during Question Period.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I think the subject has been discussed for many weeks. I would like to ask the minister the second question, if he does not wish to answer the first one.
Provincial ministers are not impressed with this minister's unilateral plans. Can the minister commit to this House that he will immediately consult with a view to reaching a consensus with his provincial counterparts, before going any further and thereby save medicare?
That was not asked in the question before us today.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the same concern applies here. Notwithstanding the parliamentary conventions, let me attempt to respond to my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister does not wish to answer, of course that is the minister's right. The hon. minister has the floor.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take advantage of the opportunity to try to put one of these shibboleths to rest.
The net cost to the federal government, the net benefit to provincial treasuries as a result of a shift from cash transfers to tax point transfers, is identical.
The hon. member asked whether or not I am prepared to consult with colleagues at the provincial level as well as to consult with people outside government. Of course I do that regularly, but the plans that were announced in the budget by the Minister of Finance is the announcement of the policy of the Government of Canada. It is important that we all work together to ensure the fiscal soundness of this country.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Patients throughout Canada who need medical attention, such as victims of heart attacks, are already queuing up and waiting for costly operations. Some of them may have to wait for up to a week on a temporary bed. With a medicare system already on the decline, how can Canadians ever hope to have an effective system or even hope the existing system to survive, threatened as it is while the decisions of his government continue to undermine the institutions which Canadians hold dearest? How?

Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, this year alone the federal government will transfer some $14 billion to the provinces for the administration of health care in Canada.
When she criticizes the delivery systems, for example in our home province, she is really criticizing the provin-
March 19, 1991

cial Liberal government which is responsible for administering those services.
It is worth while for the hon. member to note the fact that since we came to office increases in transfer payments for health care have been in the order of about $4 billion in Canada.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, we have heard this minister's protest before. Tonight his bluff will be called at six o'clock. This government will have to vote against or for medicare.
During the first five years of this government, the average increase in established programs funding was 6.3 per cent, and yet the quality of care declined over the period.
Earlier today the minister repeated that his government's contribution to medicare will extend by only 1.2 per cent in the coming year. This can only accelerate the deterioration of health care services.
Why is the minister allowing federal support for medicare to erode faster than the rate of inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has made reference to a long-standing rule in the House that questions ought not to anticipate the Order of the Day. Despite that the minister has, as is his right and if he wishes to, responded. This question is clearly taken right out of the debate which has been taking place in this House. I think I have to say that it is out of order. If the minister wishes to reply he can, but he does not have to. I want to make it very clear that the minister does not have to reply.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, precisely because of the information that was put on the record by the hon. member I want to reply. She refers to our bluff being called tonight at 6 p.m.
What members opposite, in the guise of a motion in support of medicare, are doing is proposing a motion of non-confidence in the government. In order to vote for medicare members of the government would have to be voting non-confidence.
Surely the people of Canada expect greater honesty and sincerity from the opposition than that.
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear. hear.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is about the Meme breast implant and it is for the minister of health and welfare.
Over a million Canadian women face breast cancer in their lifetime. Twelve thousand Canadian women have received Meme breast implants. Forty cases implicating the Meme breast implant are currently before the U.S. courts. A Canadian woman from Delta, B.C. is before our courts in Canada. Surely the minister has some concept of all the horrors of cancer and knows there are serious concerns about the Meme implant.
Why then does the minister continue to refuse to order that the Meme breast implant be withdrawn from the market until all questions of its safety have been answered?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Because, Mr. Speaker, all of the evidence available for the Government of Canada to date indicates that the Meme is equally safe as other breast implants.
What is taking place in the United States is the FDA is reviewing evidence with regard to all breast implants. We will review that evidence as well.
What we have done in Canada is commission independent studies, for example the Kerrigan report. Second, a study done by the University of Ottawa demonstrates that the Meme does not release carcinogens under conditions which are found in the human body.
We will be following carefully any new scientific evidence that is educed at any time, but based on the evidence that is available to the Government of Canada today there is no reason to believe that the Meme breast implant is not safe.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that there is systemic sexual discrimination in our health care system. The minister is screwing up his face and saying that is not true, but I would like to ask a question.

March 19, 1991
Oral Questions
When there is a stated health hazard in this country the minister and the health ministry act. On this issue consistently we have asked the minister to withdraw or to stop the use of the Meme.
If the minister is not willing to stop the Meme, is he willing at least to issue information to those who might get the Meme implant that it could possibly be dangerous? If he is concerned about all implants then all implants should have the warning.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, of course I reject the very unfair assertion that was made in the premise of the hon. member's question.
The key issue is this: just because the hon. member makes allegations does not make those allegations correct. The obligation of the Department of National Health and Welfare is to weigh scientific fact. If the hon. member has any scientific facts as opposed to unsubstantiated allegations, let her bring them forward.
I have offered to all members of this House a full briefing by the scientists from health and welfare. I renew that offer to her, and I also invite her again to tender any information she has whatsoever that would suggest there is a lack of safety.
Second, she asks whether or not we are prepared to give information to Canadian women considering breast implants about the safety and effects of breast implants. Yes, we do that today by helping to finance a brochure which gives Canadian women that information.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Environment.
The Minister of the Environment told us on Friday that the environmental assessments of all government projects since June 1990 must be filed with the environment committee. This is a good initiative, somewhat surprising though it may be because as a member of that committee this the first time I hear anything about it.
Here is my question, Mr. Speaker. Can the committee chairman confirm that the committee was told about it and when? In addition, can he tell us whether he has received the funds required to do that job?


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, to respond briefly, I am aware of the commitment because it was very clearly stated in the Green Plan, as confirmed by the minister the other day. When those preparations are completed, I look forward to receiving these studies. Obviously, if the committee is to do its work effectively in reviewing these important environmental assessments, we may need more assistance because I think this is a very important step in making sure that all of the Green Plan priorities are adhered to.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is evident from the reply of the chairman of the committee that he found out about that responsibility at the same time as the rest of us did and that was on Friday when the minister announced it in the House.
My question, therefore, given the chairman's somewhat puzzlement, is for the Acting Prime Minister. Last Wednesday, the Minister for International Trade stated that it would be the height of nonsense to do an environmental assessment of the Mexican free trade agreement. On Friday, the Minister of the Environment flatly contradicted him, saying that it would be done. We have just heard the chairman of the environment committee respond in some wonderment at this infighting among dinosaurs.
My question for the Acting Prime Minister is this. In all of this confusion, who is speaking for the government, the Minister of the Environment or the Minister for International Trade?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague opposite had cared to listen to the comments I made last June it was very clear. This is not something I announced in the House last week. This is something that was made very public last June.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: How come the committee didn't know about it?


Robert René de Cotret: It was made very public-
March 19, 1991


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put a question to the minister and the minister is clearly prepared to respond. I am sure that hon. members would want to hear the minister.


Robert René de Cotret: It was made very clear the days following the cabinet decision to deal with this issue. Those assessments of environmental impact that deal with cabinet documents will be made available to the House committee on the environment, as we stated back then. The commitment stands, it is there and it will be done.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In Saskatchewan last week the Minister of Finance said the $1.3 billion that was added to the agricultural budget for this year had already been committed before the bridge financing, that is being requested by producers, had been met. The Minister of Finance also said that there is no more money.
Does the Minister of Agriculture still promise Canadian farmers that he will find that money for the bridge financing before seeding this spring?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to correct what my hon. friend has said. He obviously received some misleading information or else he would not have repeated that.
What I said in the meetings I had in Saskatchewan, Alberta and also in British Columbia last week was that there is an increase in the budget for agriculture of $1.3 billion next year. There will be a western grains stabilization payment. There will be transition to the new Gross Revenue Insurance Program and transitional costs relating to that. There will also be funds available for the so-called third line of defence, which was the topic of discussion among the agriculture ministers in Saskatoon a little over a week ago.
The final details of that third line of defence are not available at this point because we are still working on the details, but I am sure that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, will be anxious to get that information out as soon as the details are ready.
Oral Questions


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance said last week, in discussions at the same meeting, that the Canadian Wheat Board deficit could approach $900 million. The western grain stabilization payment is probably going to approach $400 million. The minister just stated that payments for premiums for GRIP will have to come out of that same $1.3 billion. The money is committed, and there is nothing left over if he pays all of those bills to cover bridge financing.
Will the minister stand in his place today and say that, if necessary, he will use government contingency funds to bridge finance producers for this spring?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may try to draw whatever conclusions that he wants.
The facts of the matter are that there is an increase of $1.3 billion in the moneys that will be available for agricultural producers, principally in the grains and oilseeds sector. As I have indicated, as soon as we have precise numbers, the Minister of Agriculture will be getting that information out.
I do want to caution the hon. member on the use of some of the figures that are there, because some of those figures I did not use in my discussions with people in Saskatoon last week.


CANADA POST
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation deals with the Corporation's decision to increase by as much as 500 per cent the postal rates for the delivery of regional newspapers.
This major cost increase may jeopardize a number of businesses, because they owe their cost effectiveness to the exclusive sale of commercial advertising. They will have no other choice than to pass this increase on to business people. Last week, two weekly newspapers in my own riding had to lay off 4 employees in order to make up for this increase in their costs.
Could the minister reassure the House and the business community that he will urge the Cabinet to reverse this decision, in view especially of the fact that Canada

March 19, 1991
Oral Questions
Post is already competing unfairly with these newspapers for the delivery of circulars?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the new postal rates my hon. friend is referring to have been in place since March 1st, except those which apply to weekly newspapers. These will only be applied as of June 1, 1991.
This increase in postal rates is the result of a change in the magazine distribution assistance programs. The Department of Communications is currently developing new assistance programs.
May I add that some time next month, representatives of Canada Post corporation will meet those of the weekly publication association to discuss the circular delivery issue.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications.
Last December, while the minister sat on his hands, the CBC closed 10 regional TV stations and threw 1,100 Canadians out of work. Yesterday, at the CRTC hearings, CBC President Gerard Veilleux revealed that the corporation faces a further shortfall of some $50 million and a further possible loss of 500 to 600 jobs.
I would like to ask the minister why he continues to refuse to meet with the CBC management to discuss these cuts, and why he has abdicated, essentially, all responsibility for the CBC. Can he assure this House that he will not allow future cuts to further emasculate the CBC and throw 500 more people out of work?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, hearings are taking place this week. I imagine we should wait until those are complete before making any further comment to what the CRTC might say.
I might say that back in February, Mr. Watson said that he did not feel the CBC needed more money. He said: "I am, frankly, embarrassed that we cannot manage on $1.4 billion a year. That is a lot of money."
We are all very appreciative of the fine work that the CBC has done through the years. We are deeply supportive of their initiatives, but frankly we should let them manage their own affairs. This is what you would expect us to do, Mr. Speaker.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the pinch hitter for the Minister of Communications.
On the weekend, the Prime Minister promised to save Radio-Canada International, which is also waiting for the axe to fall come April 1. Can the minister confirm that the current funding of $20 million for RCI will be cut in half, and that the 14 languages that are currently broadcast will be reduced to four? Is this the Prime Minister's great promise of saving Radio-Canada International, to only sacrifice half of the 193 employees upon the altar of restraint?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did indicate on the weekend that the government intends to continue Radio-Canada International service. Details of how this will be done and the budget for the service are now under active consideration.


GUN CONTROL
Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. On February 8 and on February 15, the hon. minister reiterated her commitment to go ahead with effective gun control legislation. My question is this: When does the minister expect to introduce this legislation in the House of Commons?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to introducing this legislation in the House soon, in response to the Special Committee report and I hope that the House will continue its work on Bill C-80.


Benoît Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know exactly when, for we know that if the Tory caucus is divided on this issue, the Canadian people are not. The people concerned are therefore worried
March 19, 1991

and wish to know when the minister will introduce the bill.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is a source of great interest to us that even the tiny Bloc Quebecois caucus is occasionally divided on issues as well.


An hon. member:: Never together.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, a special committee of this House engaged in a in depth study, not just of C-80, but also the entire package of proposals I put forward on gun control. I received the report February 15. I have now had a chance to review the report and work is under way. I have indicated that Bill C-80 lives; Bill C-80 will be acted on. I am hoping very soon to be able to present to the House my response to the report of the special committee and we can get on with second reading of Bill C-80.


FRIGATE PROGRAM
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. I am informed that the government will be paying about $100 million to the contractor of the frigate program to do the necessary translation of technical manuals.
The government, by using its own translators, could save at least $50 million. Why did the government not insist that its own translators from Secretary of State do the job to save money and to ensure a professional translation?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the cost for doing the translation through the company which was set up by the prime contractor is competitive with the cost of doing translations within government and other areas.
I want to inform the hon. member that it is highly technical work and it seemed sensible to have the person who did the engineering and wrote the book in one
Oral Questions
language would also do the translation into the second language.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is as convoluted a justification as I have ever heard.
Is the minister satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that taxpayer's dollars are spent wisely and prudently in this case? Can he explain to Canadians why a contract of such magnitude, even though it is technically a subcontract, was given without public tenders having been called?


An hon. member:: I thought you supported the private sector.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The
hon. member will be aware that the contract was given in 1988 to the prime contractor because the prime contractor wrote the manuals for the work he was doing on the frigates. They are highly technical manuals and it seemed sensible to also have him do the translation.
If the member is trying to say that he is against setting up a large translation firm in the Province of New Brunswick, why does he not say so?


HARBOURFRONT
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. The people of Toronto are now learning that as part of the government's plan to sell Harbourfront public lands, the Minister of Public Works intends to set up an endowment fund that a reputable accounting firm says is severely underfunded and inadequate, cut a special deal giving real estate developers a $36 million windfall, and sell out Harbourfront's parking facility to private owners.
Will the minister agree today to reverse his position on these three issues before it is too late, and do what is right for the people of metro Toronto and Harbourfront?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: No, Mr. Speaker, we will not reverse the decision that was taken at Harbourfront.
We followed the decision of the royal commission on the future of the Toronto waterfront. In its publication of

March 19, 1991
Oral Questions
last summer it stated the following in regard to what the government had accomplished at Harbourfront:
The royal commission commends all three governments, the Government of Canada for leadership and the province, city and Harbourfront's board of directors for their co-operative support of the federal actions over the past year, and looks forward to the successful resolution of the Harbourfront situation.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the leadership is somewhat in doubt. The government says its actions are consistent with the McKeough report. Harbourfront's own directors do not agree with the McKeough report, city of Toronto council did not, and metro council wrote to this Parliament just three weeks ago to say that it had not been fully consulted, and objected.
Who is the minister trying to snow here about this agreement? He is not fooling the people of metropolitan Toronto. Why won't he take some action to safeguard Harbourfront's cultural programming and facilities and block this windfall to developers which will come right out of the taxpayers' pocket?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the recommendation of the royal commission was to move planned condominiums- which were put there by the previous government, I might say-off the waterfront. This has been accomplished through negotiations, through the McKeough report, and through the work of Duncan Allan with the provincial government, who was then adviser to the Liberal government who recommended this.
These follow the Liberal recommendations from the province. They support the city of Toronto, who get 40 acres of park handed to them, which has been developed by the federal government following a promise of the Liberal government back in 1973 that it would develop this area and then return it to the people of Toronto. That is exactly what this government has done.


INDUSTRY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister knows that broken federal promises have killed Versatile Pacific and shipbuilding in British Columbia, laying off hundreds of workers who have no guarantees of severance pay, no adjustment compensation or retraining. He also should know that Polish crews are doing repair jobs at Versatile which should be done by Canadians.
Will any federal help be forthcoming to save Versatile since the government cancelled the Polar 8 ice-breaker and has invested literally millions in the past which will be lost?
Will he also look into the protections and benefits for displaced workers who confronted him last week?


Thomas Hockin: The hon. member should be reminded that since 1985 VPSI has been awarded approximately a quarter of a billion dollars in Government of Canada contracts to begin with. At present this company, as she knows, owned by Shieldings, is experiencing financial difficulties and has sought protection from its creditors. There is over-capacity in this industry; the government has a policy to deal with that. We have asked this company to step forward with a viable plan. They have not done so as yet.
But what we want to do is to see those properties properly used so these people can be employed. The government stands ready with an offer, our offer is still on the table as well as our adjustment programs for the ship workers.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The Canadian Honey Council is concerned that the Minister of Agriculture appears prepared to allow the importation of Hawaiian honey bee queens this spring, even though there is an import ban on U.S. bees until December 31, 1991.
What assurance can the minister give Canadian honey producers that these Hawaiian queens will be free of the varroa mite, tracheal mite and other bee pests?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: I am sure the hon. member is aware that since the closure of the Canadian border to the importation of honey bees for Canadian use as a result of the infestation of the tracheal and varroa mites, it has created a hardship and indeed a difficulty for many beekeepers, particularly in the Peace River district in northern Alberta. They have made strong representations to allow the importation of bees from Hawaii which are not infested with the tracheal and varroa mite. In that connection, we commissioned a group of experts from
March 19, 1991

Agriculture Canada and the Alberta Department of Agriculture, along with other specialists, to go to Hawaii to determine whether it was in fact feasible. They have really found no technical reason for not bringing in honey bees from Hawaii.
We are looking at that and hope that we will be able to put in place the appropriate kind of protocol so that these beekeepers who are faced with having to bring in bees from New Zealand and Australia at considerable expense will be able to be accommodated. It is in that spirit that we are responding to this issue.
I will give the hon. member the assurance that we will ensure that the integrity of the bee population in Canada will be preserved.


POINT OF ORDER
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I understood that there was a point of privilege, but with respect to my point of order, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said in the House in answer to a question that the motion before the House on supply day was a matter of non-confidence. Ever since the adoption of the McGrath committee report, these motions have not been matters of non-confidence. The language of confidence was taken out of the Standing Orders precisely so that motions of this kind would not be regarded as motions of confidence or non-confidence by either government or opposition.
I call to your attention the day that we unanimously passed a motion, exactly the same kind of motion, having to do with the preservation of South Moresby.
Is the government saying that it should have fallen on that day because we unanimously adopted a motion of this kind? Not so. The same thing applies today. We could adopt this motion unanimously affirming medicare. The government refuses to do that. But do not let them hide behind the Standing Orders.
Point of Order


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there is no attempt to hide behind Standing Orders. There is an attempt to follow the Standing Orders on this side of the House.


An hon. member:: 


Harvie Andre: The hon. member should clean up his language a little bit and perhaps do the courtesy of being civil enough to listen.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has risen on a point of order. Tire hon. government House leader is replying. I know all hon. members would want to give him the courtesy of being able to make his reply.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as you know, allotted days for the business of supply, which is what opposition days are officially called, are a replacement for a previous practice of some years now, back prior to 1969, where in fulfilling the fundamental purpose of Parliament, namely challenging the question of supply, members used to challenge the Appropriations Act, indicating their concern or objection to various items within the Appropriations Act.
For reasons of efficiency or what have you in the House of Commons, those rules were changed in 1969 and the opposition was allotted certain days for which they could put down motions to challenge items in the Appropriations Act which were, by definition, matters of confidence; that is, appropriations by the government goes to the fundamentals of what Parliament is all about.
Supply is what this place is all about.
The hon. member sits in his seat and keeps barking. Why will he not do the courtesy of allowing me to reply to his point of order. He shouts profanities and he shouts from his seat as opposed to listening.
If the hon. member were raising in more temperate tones the concern about whether in fact these motions, in the way they are worded, in fact meet that purpose any longer, I think that would be a valuable discussion.
I would ask him to consider that taking his suggestion, his declaration, at face value will then have in essence removed from the procedures of Parliament the one mechanism wherein Parliament challenges the appropriations government asks of this House. That is the purpose of-

March 19, 1991
Point of Order


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Why don't you tell the truth. That's not true.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member sits there shouting from his seat. He is-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has the floor.


Harvie Andre: As I was attempting to say, in moderate terms, the purpose of this place is the appropriation of supply. The opposition, in challenging that, is fulfilling its role as the loyal opposition in challenging the government. To suggest that we remove totally from our Standing Orders any implication of challenge to supply in these opposition motions on allotted days is a suggestion that goes right to the root of what we are all about. It is certainly worthy of discussion. Things have changed; we have evolved. I would not dismiss arriving at an agreement consistent with the hon. member's view of what that agreement should be, but we have not reached that point. We have not had those discussions. We have not reached that position. When we do, perhaps it would be appropriate to look at the changes that might be made.
In the meantime, this must be viewed by our side as a challenge to supply, to appropriations. We are therefore duty bound to vote against a motion which we absolutely support in terms of its substance. That is the dilemma.
I perhaps could get a little indignant about this tactic, but I think we invented it when we were in opposition, didn't we, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the minister does not want me to answer.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Perhaps the government House leader would simply explain to those Canadians who are viewing and those members of the Chamber why it was that the government of which he is a part did not resign in May 1987 when this Chamber unanimously adopted the motion in my name on South Moresby.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, since I moved the particular motion, I would like to advise the Speaker that it was done with considerable thought, with careful sensitivity, and a commitment to the issue.
I am told that our rules give this government a chance to make a choice, to choose whether this is a confidence motion or a non-confidence motion. If that is so, is it possible that it has chosen it to be a vote of confidence so that it can escape the issue?
The ball is in the hands of the government: it can either support it or not.


Mr. Speaker:: We are getting a long way from a point of order. We are getting into debate and that is, after all, what the House is debating today.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I will try to stick to the point of order that is before the House.
The fundamental question here is whether or not support of this motion is tantamount to a vote of non-confidence in the government.
My colleague, the government House leader, made it quite clear earlier that this particular type of motion, an opposition day motion, has its genesis in the supply procedure. If the hon. member can be quiet for a minute and listen for 30 seconds, if he looks at the Order Paper for today, Tuesday, March 19, he will see under Government Orders, Supply Proceedings: Consideration of an Opposition Motion. Then it states: "Note: Seventh of nine allotted days and third votable motion for the Supply period". 'These motions always have been linked to supply.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member not show a modicum of courtesy to other members in the House and at least listen for a minute?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg Transco-na has raised on a point of order a question which affects the debate that is taking place today and whatever may happen later on in the day. He has said that this ought not to be treated as a motion of confidence.
The hon. government House leader has responded and set out the position of the government. The hon. minister is adding to that and I want to indicate to the House that I think I have been as generous as I ought to be, as Speaker, in letting this discussion go on for as long as it has.
I will hear the minister, and I know that he will not need to keep us very much longer.
March 19, 1991


Henry Perrin Beatty: No, Mr. Speaker, because the issue is very clear indeed. I will not take much time at all.


Mr. Speaker:: My difficulty is that in extending appropriate courtesies I need some indication of which minister wishes to speak. The hon. minister, and I will come back to the hon. House leader in just a moment.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude very simply by reiterating the point that on today's Order Paper it is made clear that this motion is intimately connected to the Business of Supply. Since the earliest days of Parliament the traditions have been abundantly clear that a defeat on a supply motion is a defeat of the government. That remains the case today. That was a point that was acknowledged. The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona should be aware of the fact that that point was explicitly acknowledged earlier today by the hon. member for Surrey North of his own caucus, speaking on behalf of his caucus. He condemned the Liberal Party for proposing such a motion under the guise of a motion of non-confidence.
That was the case this morning. It is still the case this afternoon.
The members opposite can propose that the traditions in the House be changed, but that should be a subject of negotiation. It certainly does not apply to their simply unilaterally announcing that they have been changed today.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make an offer that indeed, if there is a desire to have this motion voted on, then by unanimous consent we can agree to put down another motion: "This House has lost confidence in the government", an appropriate supply motion for whatever reason and we could have a separate vote on this House supports the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North: "That this House supports Medicare", separate the two, so there is one on the supply question and one on the question of medicare. I am sure we could reach a resolution. I would be pleased to discuss that with House leaders and reach that accommodation if that is the desire.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, this morning when the issue was raised, I accepted the explanation of the minister of health. Since then I have done some checking and found out that
Point of Order
there in fact have been some precedents. He said: "Is there any precedent". Of course, my hon. colleague has established that there is a precedent, that in 1987 there was a similar motion that the government ruled was not a motion of non-confidence.
Based on my finding out that there were precedents, I now would like to inform the House that I am in total agreement with my colleague from Winnipeg Transcona, that there is no need for the government to interpret this as a vote of confidence.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if there is a heaven for parliamentarians, somewhere Eugene Forsey is commenting on this debate. We all know the late respected senator was an expert in the matters of confidence. It was he who came before the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons and made the argument that we needed to find ways in which the House could express itself in ways which were considered not to be matters of confidence or non-confidence.
It was in response to that recommendation, as well as the recommendations of others and the consensus of the committee, that we made recommendations that the language of confidence be taken out of the Standing Orders. That is what I am referring to here today.
I know about the rules in 1969. I know about the origins of opposition days in the mechanism of supply. What I am contending here today and what no one has even acknowledged is that something happened in 1985. What happened in 1985 was that because that language was removed, both opposition parties and the government party were freed up to express themselves on the substance of the matter when it came to opposition day motions. This was to avoid precisely the kind of sheltered arguments that we are getting in this case from the government which sometimes we have got from both opposition parties. The confidence mechanism was used by all parties of this House to hide behind the substance of issues. There is no need for a second motion. I am saying to the government if it wants to reaffirm medicare as it says it does in substance, then let it vote for the motion and we can be done with all this tomfoolery.
I am saying that as of 1985 the government can vote for these kinds of motions and affirm the substance of motions and nothing happens. It just allows the House to express itself. What could possibly be wrong with that.

March 19, 1991
Supply


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who has raised this matter has wound up the exchange and has made his position very clear. The question of confidence, of course, lies with the government. The hon. House leader has made the position of the government very clear. He has also put forward a suggestion which he says he is prepared to discuss with hon. members. It seems to me that there is time to have those discussions before the day is over if hon. members wish to do so, but short of that I think we must proceed with orders of the day.


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this on the same matter?


Jean-C. Lapierre: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: So this is another matter. Very well. The hon. member for Shefford.


SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS ALLOWED DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I would like to hear your interpretation of what happened during Question Period when our New Democratic Party colleagues asked a question about the success or lack of success of Versatile in Vancouver. Subsequently, they asked a supplementary about the honey industry.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether you allowed this question on honey, bees, queen bees and the rest, because of some connection with Versatile. I would like to know what the rules are on supplementary questions, because we know you are very strict about applying the Standing Orders where the Bloc Quebecois is concerned. So I would like to know the connection between Versatile and the honey industry.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can say to the hon. member that I will look at the context in which the question was asked. I would say on the surface if the supplementary should be linked to the principal question, but I wonder if the hon. member would let me look at the matter and I will
get back to him. Prima facie the hon. member is correct in his interpretation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pagtakhan (p. 18648).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At the suspension of the debate at one o'clock, the opposition had the floor. I recognize the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain for 10 minutes.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, I feel a deep sense of history. I do not believe, as perhaps the government would assert, that this is a debate about financial realities. This debate is in fact about the nature of our country, Canada.
Great nations of the world are not simply held together by geographic boundaries. Witness the Soviet Union today. Nor are they united, in the final analysis, by words written in a constitution. At the heart of all great nations is a common belief in a set of fundamental principles.
Canadians have developed, through 123 years of history, a mutual understanding of what their country represents. Through their elected representatives they have legislated a social contract. This social contract essentially states that we each look out for not just ourselves, but each other, and that fundamental services in society such as health care should be equal in both quality and accessibility to all Canadians.
This government, I would assert, has set about through its eight years in office to destroy what had taken Canadians the previous 115 years to build: a sense of nationhood. The development of the principles of Canadian nationhood, I believe, can be closely charted alongside the development of our medical care system. How a society cares for its sick, elderly and disabled reflects on its most basic principles.
March 19, 1991

At the time of Confederation government involvement in health was very small. People relied on their own resources and those of the family. Initially provinces were responsible for the minimal role of government in health care. As Canada developed more as a country and the government began to assert a greater role in health care, the federal role increased substantially.
In 1919, the idea of a national health insurance plan first emerged at a federal Liberal Party convention. In 1959, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act established a national program of hospital insurance. In 1966, the National Medical Care Insurance Act provided for public medical insurance.
The Canadian commitment to its system of medicare has come to be one of the first things Canadians point to in defining what their country stands for. The importance of this cannot be minimized. The cutback in Established Programs Financing grants will radically change the medicare system which in so many ways has come to symbolize the Canadian principles of fairness and equality.
Those on both sides of this House will recall that in the 1988 election both the opponents and proponents of free trade judged the effects of the agreement on Canadian sovereignty in the context of medicare. Although both sides came to a different conclusion about the future of medicare under free trade, each in essence was acknowledging the incredible symbolic nature of medicare to the Canadian identity.
The cuts in EPF transfers between 1990 and 1996 will represent a drop in federal funding of over $40 billion. There can be no question that this will have a serious effect on the Canadian health care system.
At a time when hospital beds are being closed across Canada, I find it impossible to see how this can be justified. The logic behind this is difficult to understand when the aging population, AIDS, drug addiction and other serious illnesses are increasing the burden on the health care system. If the government will not believe me, perhaps it should listen to the following persons directly affected by health care cutbacks. Lionel Savoie, president of the Canadian Medical Association, representing 46,000 doctors across the country, said the following about federal cuts in health care funding:
Supply
The Government of Canada is financially strangling medicare. It has systematically reduced the planned level of federal support for provincial health care five times since 1982. This budget will speed up that process-Health care will suffer, especially those in less affluent provinces.
At the recent task force on the economy in a recession, in Hamilton, David Watts, vice-president of the Hamilton Civic Hospitals, offered the following analysis:
The province has had to restrict its transfers to the hospitals to the point where we feel that the amount of money received is less than the inflationary requirements to keep things going at the level they were the previous year.
Things have to be shuffled around and priorities have to be reset, and things that we used to do we cannot do.
The last crisis in health care in Canada occurred in the late seventies and early eighties. At that time large numbers of doctors were extra billing patients. In response, in 1984, the Canada Health Act came into being. For every dollar the provinces received in extra billing and hospital user fees, the federal government withheld a dollar in health grants. By 1987 extra billing and user fees disappeared across Canada, as all provinces complied with the Canada Health Act.
Because of cash contributions under EPF, the federal government was able to enforce the basic principles of Canada medicare. With the ever-decreasing cash contributions by the federal government under EPF, this enforcement mechanism will no longer exist.
It is estimated by the National Council of Welfare that federal cash payments to Quebec for medicare and post-secondary education, could be gone in 1996-97. Payments to Ontario could disappear by 2002 or 2003. For the other provinces and territories, they could disappear by 2007 or 2008. How will this government enforce medicare standards then?
The government no longer has the financial clout to enforce national health standards. In the near future the provinces will no longer have the means to provide universal, portable and accessible health care if the government does not reverse its course.
Certain provinces may be able to raise provincial tax revenues to maintain a semblance of medicare, but rest assured that the poorer provinces will end up being left with second-class health care.

March 19, 1991
Supply
As opposition critic for the status of disabled persons, I would like to offer my views on the effects to the disabled community. Disabled Canadians are among the poorest citizens of this country. Approximately 80 per cent of them are unemployed. Of those disabled people fortunate enough to be employed, the majority are ghettoized and underemployed.
In 1986 almost two-thirds of those employed had a total income of less than $10,000. The dependants of disabled persons on social programs such as universal medicare is the highest of all economically disadvantaged groups.
Disabled persons must face the daily challenge of trying to cope with the extra burden of their special care and living needs while in most cases having insufficient resources to make ends meet. It is a fact of life for most disabled Canadians that they are severely constrained financially, a situation that is only marginally alleviated by government programs.
It is also a fact of life that their chances of gainful employment are still very slim. Opening the door to the possibility of user fees or lower quality medical service will severely hurt the disabled community, which can least afford it.
The disintegration of universal medicare will further marginalize and isolate the disabled community. Once again, it will relegate its hopes of economic integration to the back burner.
As members of a society who need medicare the most, the disabled will be the first casualties of federal withdrawal from health care. There can be no question that there are financial challenges involved in maintaining medicare at its current level.
By cutting health care funding, the federal government has turned financial challenges into economic impossibilities. It has made a bad situation into a disaster.
Why did it not examine alternative means to reduce health care spending? Why, when many provinces have begun their own studies into the health care system, has the federal government decided to run away from the problem?
Health care professionals have claimed for years that health care costs can be greatly reduced through prevention. It is estimated that reducing the occurrence of low
birth rates even by 1 per cent could save billions of dollars a year.
The point is that there are many other ways of making the health care system more cost efficient without trashing the fundamental principles of medicare. An honest examination of the issues of health care in Canada is needed. We on this side of the House support this. We do not, however, support empty promises and the dismantling of medicare which this government has already begun.
The cuts in federal health care funding attack the most basic principles of equality, caring and fairness that make up the Canadian identity. For the sake of Canadians and Canada, the government must restore health care funding.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, again I listened intensely to the comments of the member about the commitment toward medicare. It is very nice to make, as she called them, empty promises. I think the government has been good at that, but I think the Liberals have even been better at empty promises.
It is all very nice for them to talk about what they should do, but the reality is that when the Liberals were in power and had the right and ability to demonstrate their commitment to medicare, what did they do?
Would the member like to explain what was the commitment to medicare of the previous Liberal finance minister when he put a cap on medicare in 1975? What was the commitment to medicare when the Liberal government in the early eighties $1.2 billion in transfer payments from the provinces, the same amount of money that the federal government is taking this year? What was the demonstrated Liberal commitment to medicare when they started gutting medicare when they had the power to protect it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Perhaps I may point out that we now have five minutes for questions and answers. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, I have been here all day and there is something that confuses me. I have heard these gentlemen on the left, and they have been gentlemen today who have been speaking. The member has gone on and on and on all day, commenting on what the
March 19, 1991

Liberals have done with medicare, what he did not like about what the Liberals had done with medicare, and what he thinks they should have done with medicare.
I studied history and, as far as I know, this party on the left has never been in power so it has done nothing about medicare. Instead of continually criticizing what the Liberals have done, it should be glad that we have had a medicare program in Canada for many, many years. It is not perfect and nobody has ever said it is perfect, but it is a medicare plan that people in Canada have felt comfortable with.
Instead of arguing about something they are upset about because they did not do one single thing to get medicare in this country in that they have never been elected federally in this country, they should be protecting the medicare plan and using their energy in a positive way to make the government across the way keep our medicare in a whole unit that will help Canadians, all Canadians.
[Translation \


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Saint-Maurice. There are two minutes left.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, we just listened with great interest to a lively discussion between two real socialists. The NDP are clearly socialists, but the socialists in the Liberal Party do not always come across as the real thing.
In any case, Monique Begin, once a member of cabinet under the Liberal government, said after the Budget was brought down that people should ignore the Liberal Opposition her own friends and stop listening to them because what they were saying about the Budget wasn't true. Mrs. Begin said, the day after the Budget was brought down, that Mr. Wilson's latest budget did not in any way affect our medicare system in this country.
I think the hon. member should listen to this former minister who was part of the Trudeau government. Now that she has retired from the partisan side of political life, she tells us quite clearly: "Don't listen to the Liberal Opposition. They want to scare people". Just like the Liberals scared senior citizens in my riding, in Saint-Maurice, during the last federal election campaign, when they said: If you vote for the Conservatives and free
Supply
trade, all old age pensions in Saint-Maurice will be scrapped.
The Liberals are using the same kind of scare tactics again, but I think Canadians will ignore them and maintain their confidence in our national medicare system, a system we want to maintain and preserve for the years to come.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker somewhere during that little dissertation the hon. member mentioned listening to. I do not know what the government members do when they go back to their ridings. I wonder how many phone calls they get about this budget. I wonder how many people are phoning, wondering what is going to happen if they get sick or if the federal government continues to stop giving grants to the provincial government and there is not enough money for the hospitals.
I cannot believe that they even ever turn up in their constituency offices, and they are still talking the same way about listening. The party people across the floor should be listening to the people of Canada and they would not touch medicare; they would leave it the way it was.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join in this debate this afternoon.
However, I must point out to the people who are not here in the House but are out in listening land that the motion before us says "This House reaffirms its commitment to medicare". We on this side would dearly like to be able to vote for it. Nonetheless, by a quirk of the rules, it would be considered non-confidence in the government if we were to vote that way. It has been explained earlier, but I just wanted to go on record as restating that position. I will be voting with the government against this motion when the vote is taken at six o'clock this evening.
What I would like to do for the next few minutes is speak about some of the media coverage that we have had over the last few weeks regarding medicare. There certainly has not been any shortage of this media coverage.
Some of the headlines have been: "Strangling of Medicare", "Death of Medicare", "Limit on Transfer Funds Called Medicare Threat", and so on.

March 19, 1991
Supply
This coverage seems to have been prompted by the exercise of expenditure control on federal health transfer payments to the provinces. The limiting of these transfers is part of a broader program of expenditure control that touches virtually all aspects of federal government spending. Transfers to the provinces comprise over 20 per cent of federal government expenditures and cannot be exempted from control. Even with the controls, transfers to the provinces will continue to increase at about 3.7 per cent per year over the next five years, while other government program spending will be limited to a growth of 3.4 per cent.
The recent media coverage tells us a lot about what Canadians feel and think about this country and about their world-class health care system. I would like to give my interpretation of what we have seen in the press.
First, it tells me that Canadians love medicare. Our universal, publicly financed health care system is part of a value system of this country. Second, it tells me that Canadians see the federal government as the guardian of medicare. They want the government to retain its ability to enforce the Canada Health Act. Third, it tells me that many Canadians still link dollars to health. They assume that the system is underfunded and that if we only spent more all our health problems would be solved.
These are strong messages, and I would like to explore them a little more in detail.
This country has embarked upon an historical debate about national unity. Canadians across the country are assessing what it means to be a Canadian. It is clear to me that our beliefs about health care play a fundamental role in defining us as Canadians. Medicare is a central component of Canadian culture. Ask any Canadian what he or she values about this country, what makes this country a good place to live, and I know that in almost all circumstances they will say: "Our medicare system".
Canadians also believe that the federal government must play a strong role in our health care system. They look to the federal government as the guardian of medicare. This government accepts this role and is comfortable in it. This government stands by the principles of the Canada Health Act which are: universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability, and public administration.
This legislation has not been amended since it was passed into law with the unanimous support of this House almost seven years ago. The government has announced that it will be taking action to ensure that it has the means to enforce the act. The Minister of Finance made this clear in his budget last month, when he said in The Budget Papers:
The federal government will be amending the Fiscal Arrangements Act so that, if necessary, other cash transfers to provinces could be withheld for purposes of enforcement. The conditions and criteria governing medicare will not change. Indeed, this action will strengthen the government's ability to uphold the conditions and criteria which govern the national medicare system.
That is a pretty straightforward statement made on behalf of the government by the finance minister, and there is no room for misinterpretation.
The federal government has this guardian role, but its involvement extends well beyond this. The federal government is a partner in health. This partnership role is manifested in many ways. The federal government is a partner in financing health care.
Under Established Programs Financing, the government will be contributing about $14.5 billion in 1991-92 for health, over $13 billion for insured hospital and medical services, and $1.5 billion for extended health care services. These amounts are substantial and clearly indicate the government's commitment to health care.
Another example of federal partnerships is in combating tobacco use. Our national strategy is a comprehensive, co-operative, integrated effort to combat tobacco use. It brings together health officials of federal, provincial, territorial governments and eight national voluntary public health organizations. These organizations are the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, the Canadian Lung Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada.
The strategy has three goals. The first is prevention, to help non-smokers stay smoke free. The second is cessation, to encourage and help people to quit smoking. The
March 19, 1991

third goal is protection, to protect the health and rights of non-smokers.
This approach is bearing fruit. Since 1986 per capita tobacco consumption has fallen by 24 per cent. The annual decline in tobacco consumption was 7.6 per cent. This was the largest decline ever recorded and it looks like the numbers for 1990 will be even better. The tax increases announced in the latest budget should reduce the number of teenage smokers by 100,000.
The government is also a partner in the national drug strategy. The strategy was launched in May 1987 with the objective to reduce the harm to individuals, families and communities from the abuse of drugs through a balanced approach. Activities and programs to fight drug abuse are undertaken in partnership with the provinces for treatment and rehabilitation, with community based groups for education and prevention programs, with universities for research and with business through corporate sponsorship of prevention programs.
AIDS is another area where the federal government is a strong partner. The national strategy was announced on June 28, 1990, and involves partnerships in five major program areas: in education and prevention; in biomedical initiatives; in care, treatment and support; in support to non-governmental organizations; and in co-ordination and collaboration with a wide range of partners in Canada and around the world.
The government is also involved in partnerships in health and the environment. The health and the environment component of the Green Plan was developed through nation-wide consultations with individuals, communities and organizations. The partnerships developed through the Green Plan consultations include native people in addressing native health and environmental issues; communities; and international organizations such as the World Health Organization high level mission on health and the environment, OECD technology and environment program, and international program on chemical safety.
It is easy to see why many Canadians would feel that health care is threatened if it does not get ever increasing funds. It seems that there can never be enough
Supply
resources where your own health or the health of your loved ones are concerned.
But as a society, we have to be objective about how much we spend on health, at least as objective as we can be.
Canada is the highest spending nation of all countries with a publicly-financed health care system, $56.1 billion or 8.9 per cent of the GNP in 1989. Spending on health care is one of the fastest growing areas. Canadians are among the healthiest in the world, but increases in health spending have not produced commensurate increases in health status. The gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest Canadians is almost two years for women and five and a half for men. This gap increases significantly if disability is factored in.
Other nations spend less and have better health status. Japan spends 6.8 per cent of GNP and has lower infant mortality rates: 5 per 1,000 live births versus 7.9 for Canada. Resources are finite; every dollar that is spent on health care has an opportunity cost. It is a dollar not spent on education, accident reduction programs or reducing illiteracy. There may be other areas where benefits, in terms of health status of the population, might well be higher.
Tough choices have to be made and they are not going to get any easier. As we learn more about the the determinants of health status, we will have to consider a broader range of allocative choices. There are other factors that affect the well-being of populations beyond health care and public health measures like education, environment and poverty.
Most of the recent provincial task forces and commissions that have examined the health system have recognized, once again, that health is not just health care.
More money is not the answer. A consensus is emerging on this, but clearly we have a distance to go. It is important that we build on this consensus. We have to challenge ourselves not to spend more but to spend better. In the end we are all seeking the same goal: a better and more equitable distribution of health status for all Canadians.
I welcome the opportunity of speaking to this motion today.

March 19, 1991
Supply


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague and my friend from Fraser Valley East for the very thoughtful presentation he made to the House. I am wondering if he would allow me to ask him several questions with respect to the comments that he just made.
Let me list those in order of importance. The question that I get constantly as I travel through my riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, where there are several hospitals and many senior citizen complexes, concerns most senior citizens. They worry about their personal safety and the delivery of adequate health care which they have come to expect from other governments in this country.
As a first question, I would like to ask my friend if he could unequivocally state to the seniors, not only in Thunder Bay-Nipigon but the seniors throughout this country, the question that comes to me on almost a weekly basis when I have the opportunity to get back to Thunder Bay-Nipigon, whether this government is going to do anything to jeopardize the delivery of health care services to seniors?
As we know, these people all live on pensions and they are sometimes in very frugal surroundings. They are concerned about the application of user fees in this country. They are concerned about having to go to a doctor and having to pay a fee. They are concerned about the availability of drugs which are getting very expensive. They are concerned about the user fee or a deductible portion that they are going to pay.
I would like my hon. friend, who has just given this fine treatise on his government's plans for the medical system in Canada, to assure the seniors in my riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, but also assure all the seniors throughout the country, that this in fact is not going to be a program that his government will entertain during its term of office.
The second and perhaps equally important issue that my friend alluded to in his remarks is that medicare has come to be one of those very important services that this government provides to all its citizens and one of the factors that unify this country.
I am certainly glad that the former minister of health is in the House. I am concerned that when we talk about what is going on constitutionally in this country, that we are going to separate the powers, that we are going to stop being a federal state, that it is contemplated to give
so many more powers to the provinces. I am concerned about this fundamental right that all of our Canadian citizens, especially those who are approaching the senior level, have to the availability of medical care and drug care that we have come to expect.
I am sure my colleague, who is such a thoughtful man, has put his mind to this. What happens if we become something less than a federal state? What happens to our medical system, our plans and what we have come to expect in this country? What happens to this very important facet of our daily lives should we become something less than the federal state, such as is being proposed in our country today?


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend opposite for his questions.
We have to think of what sort of controls are in the medical system now to prevent people abusing the emergency wards? It is strange that we should find that emergency wards in our hospitals are far more widely used on the weekends. I remember the hospital at home when B.C was the last province to stop user fees.
B.C. had user fees in the system. In 1983 when the Canada Health Act was brought in, it said that user fees could not be used. If a province had user fees, it was penalized by the amount of money charged, which was held in trust for a certain amount of time. That money was lost if it did not stop charging user fees.
It was strange that as soon as the user fees were stopped, the use of in the emergency ward in the hospital at home went up dramatically in the following month. It was really strange that there should be a correlation between the user fees and that.
It was also asked by people in the British Columbia government whether we would consider bringing user fees back in. I said to them: "If you would bring that forward to the federal government through your health ministers' meetings and had a significant number of health ministers requesting it, then we would seriously look at it. Unless that was to come with a very strong mandate from a number of provinces, then we would not look at it."
The hon. member asked about whether or not we are committed to the delivery of services. Yes, we are. The hon. member can assure his seniors that we are as
March 19, 1991

committed to it today as when it was brought in so many years ago.
What is going to happen if our country splits up? I hope our country does not split up, and I am doing everything I can to ensure that it does not. I am glad to see that the majority of people in this House do not want to see our country split up. We have representatives on both sides of the House, and there is only a very small minority who want to see a different arrangement of Canada than the Confederation that we now have.
I am still an optimist about our country. I still have faith that we will continue to be the dominion of Canada from sea to sea and that the health system we have grown accustomed to and which the whole population expects to be delivered by our senior levels of government will continue to be so.
One thing that is not widely known or understood is that when the federal government reduces any of its payments in the Established Programs Financing, there are tax credits which are given to the provinces so that they can pick up the slack. The amount of dollars that the province will have to use will still be the same amount.
Many people say that we are cutting down on medicare. Nonetheless, we have frozen the dollars on the EPF-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. I want to recognize another member who wants a question or comment.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to congratulate the member for his speech.
There is a report published today which states: "One in four report lengthy delays in health care." It goes on to state, for example, that of the 25 per cent who reported problems getting treatment; 12 per cent waited longer than four weeks.
I for one understand the fact that it is not necessarily always a question of funding or more money towards programs. Sometimes it is a question of efficiency.
I was just wondering if the member can tell us what ways or means he has in mind to increase the efficiency of our health care system.
Supply


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very good question. I am not sure sufficient work is being done on how we might improve the system. Have we really gone out and brought to bear all of the minds that are in our health care system to see how they can improve it?
I know that when a patient goes in to see his doctor for a check-up, the doctor has a little check off pad for the various tests he wants. He can check every one off. Whether all are necessary or not, I do not know, I am not a medical doctor. But really, is anybody looking over his shoulder to see how many of those tests were necessary for the general health of that patient?
I am sure there are many, many cases across our country, from coast to coast, of things being performed that are not necessary for the health and well-being of the patient.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance announced in last month's budget that the freeze on the EPF, that is the Established Programs Financing, would extend to the fiscal year 1994-1995. As all members in the House know, these entitlements cover payments to the provinces for health and post-secondary education.
I am the critic for youth for the Liberal Party and as such I want to mention of how these cuts in medicare are going to affect the young people of our country.
Some years ago the Liberal Party put its caring stamp, as I call it, on the nation by bring in the universality of social programs. The minister of external affairs who was here today, mentioned Lester B. Pearson in his speech a few days ago, when he was talking about the peace process in the gulf. Well, Lester B. Pearson-I call him the man of peace-whose work did lead to a Nobel Peace Prize, brought us medicare and the Canada Assistance Plan as well as bringing us great renown because of his work for peace.
The programs he brought in followed those which were brought in by Mr. Mackenzie King; old age pensions; family allowances and unemployment insurance.
The viability of these programs is now in jeopardy, due to a succession of brutal budget cuts by the Mulroney administration. We generally tend to think of medicare as a program for older Canadians. But as I look at the frightening statistics and the ravages of AIDS on our

March 19, 1991
Supply
youth, I become more convinced that our commitment to health programs must be greater, not smaller and surely, not endangered by lack of funds.
I recall 25 years ago when the thalidomide babies first came to our attention. The plight of our young thalidomide Canadians must be adequately remembered, considered and finally, I believe, they must be compensated by this government very soon. They cannot wait much longer.
From the period 1986 to 1996, the government's cuts to the EPF payments will reach $40 billion. A cutback of this magnitude is unprecedented in the history of federal-provincial relations. To compensate for the loss of federal support, the provinces and the municipalities are either going to have to increase taxes or cut services. Given the priority nature of health care, as well as that of welfare support and quality education, tax increases at the provincial levels are an inevitable result of federal buck passing. Statistics released yesterday indicate that by the end of this century, and that is only a few short years away, there will be 10 million orphans in the world due to the ravages of AIDS. Unfortunately, Canada will not be spared its share of this terrifying statistic.
It is tragic for a child to die of AIDS, but even more tragic and heart-wrenching is the discovery by a mother that she, too, may soon die knowing that she has infected her baby and is leaving her other children as orphans.
In 1993 more than 7,000 people with HIV infection in Canada will have progressed AIDS. Canada has one of the highest rates of infection in the developed world and the epidemic has spread rapidly. It is estimated by the Canadian Public Health Association that 50,000 Canadians are now infected with HIV.
Several organizations work at preventing and informing the public about the dangers of the infection, but until a cure is found, and we are going to need money for that in research and development, it is our responsibility to care for the sick. The Canadian Institute of Child Health states that: "Canadian children's health is poorer than other western nations in the mid-1980s". In the mid-1980s the infant mortality rate was higher in Canada, that is 7.9 per 1,000 live births, than in Japan which had 6.0 per 1,000 live births, and several other western nations. This rate is traditionally regarded as an indication of the health status of children in this society.
Canada's death rate from all causes for school-age children was higher than that of Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, Germany and England. This is just not acceptable to the people of Canada. The Canadian experience is even worse for deaths due to injury. At 13 deaths per 100,000, school-age children in Canada die more often from injury than children in eight other western developed nations.
Canada's death rate from all causes for teenagers is nearly double the rate for the Netherlands. We even see inequalities among the children of Canada. Infant mortality rates are more than 1.5 times higher in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland than in Ontario and Quebec. In 1986 death rates for poor children were 56 per cent higher than for higher income children and this rate of 56 per cent is doubled again among our native infants. That is not acceptable.
This government is playing Russian roulette with our nation's health system. Perhaps the intention is not to kill medicare. As the hon. member who just spoke said, it is not the intention of this government to kill medicare, but the Minister of Finance must stop this relentless pursuit of budget control through cuts to our social programs. It just does not make sense. It is a fallacy to say that Canada's social programs are responsible for the deficit. They are not. That would lead to another whole debate as to why we are in the economic predicament we are in but it is not because of our social programs.
Our medicare program was at one time the envy of many countries around the world. In fact most Americans would abandon their health care system and join one like ours if they could, that is the system as we knew it before, as it was implemented by the Liberals during the Pearson administration. There have been too many horror stories in the last few years, stories of long waiting lists. One in four is said to be now waiting for surgery, as my colleague pointed out a few minutes ago. There is postponed surgery, overcrowded emergency facilities and perhaps saddest of all is the total lack of adequate
March 19, 1991

programs and care for Canadians of all ages who suffer due to mental illnesses.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time is almost up. I would have wanted to delve into the problem of mental illnesses and how we care for our people, but perhaps that will come in another debate.
We in the Liberal Party have a strong commitment to Canada's medicare program. We fear that the lack of interest from this government might lead us into expensive private plans to which only a small percentage of Canadians would have access. Our interest in social programs remains one based on universality. That means that we are all equal and we should at least have equal medical care in this very rich and prosperous country.
I would say to the minister and to all of my colleagues who would think otherwise: Keep your hands off of our medicare system. It is one for which we have worked very hard and one which is surely worth preserving for our children and our children's children.


Peter L. McCreath: I listened with great interest, as I always do when my hon. friend from Welland speaks. He did leave me a little bit confused on one point and I would like to put a very specific question to him in that regard, and I am sure that his answer will be as specific as my question.
I heard him very clearly say that we should be spending more in provincial transfers. I must say I know that if we were able to do that we would very much ingratiate ourselves with the government of my province, the government of Nova Scotia. I notice in the budget this year that the government is indeed increasing EPF payments by 3.7 per cent while limiting its own growth to 3.4 per cent.
Therefore, my question to my hon. friend is: Would he specifically tell us which programs of the government he would cut in order to make available the additional moneys that he thinks should be applied to health care.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I do thank my hon. friend from South Shore for his question. He said that they were going to increase the payments by 3.7 per cent. If it is true that inflation this year is going to be, I believe,
Supply
well over 6 per cent and possibly 7 per cent, I think that what we would have there is not an increase but a decrease because they are not even keeping up with inflation.
But the question was very specific and very fair, and I imagine it comes down to priorities. The hon. member asked for an opinion from me, and I could tell him that my priorities would be to put our moneys into our social programs rather than into defence spending. I think it is much more important to save lives and to take care of Canadians than to have all of the weaponry which would be destructive, not only to Canadians but to other people.
And that is a specific suggestion to a very specific question.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Is that Liberal Party policy?


Mary Catherine Clancy: I would be happy, Mr. Speaker, to begin by answering the hon. minister's question except I did not hear it, so he can wait and ask me in the proper way at the end.
I am delighted to stand and speak in support of the motion by my hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, that this House reaffirm its commitment to medicare, and that we reaffirm this commitment not by idle words, not by pious mouthings, but by putting some money where those pious mouthings are.
Another friend of mine, the hon. member for South Shore, got up and talked about how Liberal policies would gladden the hearts of his own government-my government, too, -in Nova Scotia, and I want to talk a little bit about what this government policy is doing in the province of Nova Scotia. Today a headline in the Halifax Chronicle Herald states: "Cuts in federal payments put medicare system in danger". I quote: "Medicare is something most Canadians take for granted but shouldn't. It may not be with us much longer".
This article goes on to tell us about the cuts, which my friends on the other side keep saying are not cuts, that Bill C-69 freezes transfer payments to the provinces for health and education at the 1989-90 until 1995. Given the inflation rate and given the way this country is developing, that is a cut. And a cut is a cut is a cut.

March 19, 1991
Supply
These observations are not coming from partisan politicians. They are coming from the Canadian Medical Association and the director of government relations for that august body. He says that the CMA's concern is the impact that this freeze on transfer payments will have on the quality and accessibility of health in the country as a whole, but in particular, in the Atlantic region.
It is the same old story. If it hurts anywhere in Canada, and my friend from South Shore knows this and knows it well, it is going to hurt even more in the Atlantic region.
Since the inception of medicare in 1965, Canadians have had a tremendous boon and a tremendous gift. They have not had to worry. They have not had to worry about paying for their health care and the health care of their children. This was brought home to me in a very significant way in the late 1960s.
In 1967 a very close friend of mine, who was a student in university, married an American student and they went back to the United States for two years. During that two-year period they had one daughter. They came back to Canada in 1970 to resume their university careers in Halifax. They were barely in the country a week when their daughter contracted pneumonia and had to be hospitalized. Because my friend had been out of the country for two years, she had to be back in the province for three months before being covered by medicare.
I remember very well two very frightened, very young parents with a very sick baby. Every one of us I think can empathize with that situation. Certainly my colleague from Winnipeg North as a paediatrician has seen that many times and the fear, the stress and the anguish of parents in that situation. Added to my friend's fear, stress and anguish was there they were living on the money they had managed to save for two years, living with a small amount of student loan, the fact that both of them had part-time jobs and they were going to be faced with an horrendous medical bill for their child's health care because they had fallen through one of the cracks, a crack that we need to have I suppose. I understand the situation. It certainly brings forward how crucial, how important medicare in its original state is to the health and well-being of this country as a whole.
I remember another evening, shortly after I was elected, spending some time after a committee with two of my colleagues, the member for Willowdale and the member for Dartmouth. We each started talking about the reasons that we had such a strong commitment to social programs in this country. It turned out that each one of us had a story about what it was like in our families to suffer incredible medical bills and the incredible insecurity vis-a-vis the cost of health care in premedicare Canada.
Every one of us in the House can delve back into our families and find a story that relates to those that I have mentioned here today. Every one of us is committed, at least to the principle of medicare, but we need more today than just the principles.
I have heard over and over again, I heard it today in Question Period, I have heard it ever since this budget came out, that there is not really a cut taking place because the federal government is transferring tax points to the provinces. Well, maybe that works in B.C. Maybe it works in the hon. minister's province of Manitoba, although I am sure my colleague from Winnipeg North will have something to say abut that. Maybe it works in Alberta and Ontario. As the hon. member from South Shore will have to agree, it does not work in Nova Scotia.
You could transfer tax points until the cows come home, and if you have an economy that cannot support that kind of a tax base, that does not engender that kind of a tax base, all the tax points in the world are just points on paper. They are not dollars for medical care, and they are not going to assist in the payment of medical care for Nova Scotians. They are not going to give any sense of security to the people in my province who woke up this morning and read in their newspapers that cuts in federal payments put the medicare system in danger.
Mr. Geekie from the Canadian Medical Association said that what provinces decide to do is going to be on an individual basis. But the very fact that the cuts are taking place is going to pretty well erode or eliminate national standards or criteria from health care.
We live in perilous times for this country. Every one of us in this House at some point, at many points during our day, thinks about the country. We think about the future of the country, and we think about what Canada means to us. I was 17 years old when medicare came in. One of
March 19, 1991

Supply
the things that makes me intensely, emotionally proud to be a Canadian is medicare, is the universality of that program, is the fact that at least on a regional basis-not perhaps in every community because of our geography and our small population, and so on-there can be access to a reasonably high standard of medical care in this country.
If this devolves on to the provinces, particularly the have not provinces, that concept is dead. It is gone. It will mean that if you live in Atlantic Canada, or if you live in northern Canada, or northern Ontario, or parts of Quebec, or parts of the western provinces, you will not have the access to the same level of medical care as if you lived in downtown Toronto, downtown Montreal, "downtown Vancouver. That is simply un-Canadian and that is simply unacceptable.
Every one of us is concerned about the deficit. Every one of us is concerned about balancing our budget, about paying our way, and about making sure that this country survives fiscally as well as constitutionally and spiritually. We cannot do it by cutting out the heart of our nation's belief, the heart of our nation's existence, and that is by cutting out the heart of those programs that Canadians have come to rely on, that they swear by, that they are sending a message to each and every one of us here in this House to maintain. The jewel in that crown is medicare.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I compliment my hon. friend for Halifax. I listened with great interest to her remarks, but she did say one or two things that I wanted to question.
The hon. member said that medicare should stay exactly the same as it was when it first came back-and it could not be too many years ago if my hon. friend was 17 then-and I am tempted to ask her if she is suggesting that all aspects of the medical system should remain the same as they were then, but I am sure she would not mean that.
My question to the hon. member is with respect to the existence of medicare. In particular, I refer to our own province. I think the Minister of Health in our province would be delighted to infer from my hon. friend's remarks that she feels the medical system and the health system in our province cannot be improved upon. My question is: is she completely satisfied that no improvements in cost effectiveness can be made in the health care system in Nova Scotia?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for South Shore for his question. I suggest that he remove some of the Hubbard sand from his ears.
I did not for one instance suggest that the medical care system in this country could not be improved upon, nor did I for a moment suggest that-


Peter L. McCreath: I heard what you said.


Mary Catherine Clancy: The hon. member clearly misheard. What I said was that it must not be diminished or retrenched from. Improved, definitely.
I refer in particular to a study going on right now in the health and welfare committee where we are looking at and will be reporting on in due time ways to improve the delivery of health care systems in this country. There is absolutely no question that there are myriad ways to improve the health care system. There are myriad ways to make it more cost effective, unquestionably.
One thing we know is that there is a very high level of satisfaction with medicare in this country by Canadians. We also know that our costs on a per capita basis are not as high as those of our neighbours to the south. We therefore can extrapolate from that and from various other empirical data that we have received in the committee that, for example, a user-pay system is not the answer to the cost overruns in medicare today.
I would invite the hon. member, as I am sure he will, to read the report when it comes out and perhaps even to go to the committee Hansard and read some of the testimony. We have heard from some fascinating witnesses at that committee.
One thing that particularly interested me was the whole question of standardizing communication and management administration of the medical care system through computers and the fact that computerization is still something relatively foreign to medical practice and hospital administration in this country.
I will refer to a perfect example of this. I was speaking to a specialist in Halifax not too long ago. He told me that a patient came to him with a particular problem, but the hospital of first instance in another part of the region had neglected to send the patient's x-rays. Because it was a situation that could be urgent depending on what was going on, the doctor in Halifax ordered new x-rays, doubling the cost. If that man's x-ray package had been sent with him, there would have been one form of money saved.

March 19, 1991
Supply
I am also told that there are communication systems that can be set up where reports of that nature, pictures, and so on can be sent on an electronic or computerized system.
What I am saying is that we may have to look at tremendously innovative ways of reducing the cost of the health care system, but let us not look at that reduction by reducing quality and standard of care to Canadians or by reducing the absolutely imperative standard of universality.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: On debate. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice has the floor.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian peole following this debate on our health care system must be wondering. Since this morning, we have been hearing opposition members paint an overly bleak and pessimistic picture of health care in Canada. Yet, when we leave that kind of planet away from earth, get out of Parliament and take a look at the situation in the field, with both feet well on the ground, as we say in Quebec, we realize that it is quite different.
The Canadian people who pay their income taxes each year know how expensive the Canadian health care system is. And I think it is normal to want to afford the Canadian people the best health care services in the world. However, we must remember that all that costs money. If we were to implement all the good ideas the Liberal and NDP members have come up with up to now-I am not mentioning the members of the Bloc Quebecois, Mr. Speaker, because they did not show more than one quarter of one hundredth of one per cent of interest in this very important debate on the universality of health care in Canada-we would have to double, triple and even quadruple the income taxes collected across Canada to finance their projects.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have to know that, in 1991, their health care system will cost them the tidy amount of, not $60 million, but $60 billion. This is no big thing, of course, only the largest amount ever spent on health care in Canada's history. Yet, when listening to the Liberal and NDP members, one gets the impression
that almost all hospitals in Canada are closed, that there are no old folks homes left and no community health care services in the various provinces of Canada.
That is far from the truth though. The health care system in Canada got gradually better over the past few years. The provincial governments as well as the federal government invested billions and billions of dollars to finally reach that $60 billion we will be spending this year, that is to say $2,500 per capita. This means that the health care system is costing $2,500 per capita to the taxpayer, and heaven knows we have a lot of taxes to pay in this country.
I think that the Canadian people are nevertheless entitled to one thing-and the big difference between our philosophy and that of the opposition members is that we learned to be realistic.
The members on this side of the House have learned to say: Considering the present state of government finance, considering the current national debt, the major part of which was created by the successive Liberal governments in the 1960s and 1970s, considering this extremely difficult situation we are in today, this is no time to increase government budgets, whether at the municipal, provincial or federal level. I suggest we have reached a crucial point where we must master the art of managing whatever money we have and ensuring that the $60 billion that health care will cost in Canada in 1991 will be used in the most efficient way possible instead of just investing more and more money in the system. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, the key element of our present situation is to know how to use the funds available to deliver the world's best health care system to the Canadian people.
I say this because it is a very important question. But there is one thing that Canadians have to know, something which Liberals are wont to forget: the federal government is not responsible for the management of hospitals and health centres throughout the country. That responsibility belongs to each and every provincial government. Earlier I heard the hon. member from Nova Scotia blame the federal government for the long hospital waiting lists in her province, as in other provinces indeed. That is not a federal responsibility. The

federal government has invested a lot of money in terms of transfers for medicare.
The main question now, Mr. Speaker, is what are we going to do to ensure that the $60 billion expended each year for health care throughout Canada are put to good use. That is the direct responsibility of the provinces. Let us take just one example. Go anywhere in Canada, in Quebec, in other provinces or in the Territories and you will see for yourself that a considerable number of hospital beds in this country are occupied by senior citizens, people aged 65 or over. And as everyone knows, in the health sector if a chronically-ill elderly person has to lie in a hospital bed this represents almost prohibitive social cost charges against the budgets of health ministries in the various provinces. That is the prevailing situation in all regions of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, instead of investing this money in keeping senior citizens in hospitals at a prohibitive cost, we should look for alternative solutions and try to provide accommodation for senior citizens that puts less pressure on our health care resources.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention another phenomenon in this country: when Canadians go to the hospital, they tend to stay longer than patients in other industrialized countries I am thinking of France, Great Britain, United States, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Norway. Now, I don't suppose Canadians are sicker than the Swedes, the Finns or the Norwegians. But I do think that we have a very serious problem here in our health care system. Why should Canadians, given the same standard of medical care, stay in hospital longer than people in other industrialized countries?
Mr. Speaker, I think we should remember that the provinces are responsible for running our hospitals and are therefore responsible for admitting and releasing patients. The provincial governments should take a long, hard look at this situation.
Mr. Speaker, in Canada our health care system costs $2,500 per capita. Today, in 1991, 57,000 physicians are being paid by taxpayers to look after the health of Canadians. We have a quarter of a million nurses who
Supply
provide care in our hospitals. However, Mr. Speaker, despite the billions of dollars invested in this sector, the federal government has very little control over the money it gives to the provinces, because it just hands over the money and the provinces apply the national policy adopted by previous governments-despite all that, we still have a higher infant mortality rate than other countries.
What does this mean? Here in Canada we spend more money than any other country in the world with a comparable medicare system, in terms of our Gross National Product. We spend more money than Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Great Britain all countries with a national system. We spend more per capita in terms of our Gross National Product than all these countries.
Although our national health care system, which is in good shape, has a number of shortcomings, it is the provinces who are responsible for doing something about those shortcomings. It is high time, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP and the Liberals stopped blaming the federal government, because the provinces are responsible for doing something about this. That is the crux of the matter. That is what we have to consider if we want to do something about the health care system in this country.
There is also something else, something veiy important that Canadians must realize. Since we started the debate this morning with the hon. member for Winnipeg North, the Liberals kept saying it was the end of our medicare system in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that there is not another country in the world that spends as much money as Canada does in this area. What more do the Liberals and the New Democrats want? There is enough money in the system, but the problem is that we have to improve the way we use the resources at our disposal.
There is another tactic the Liberals are using to get their message across, Mr. Speaker. The formal federal Minister of Health, Ms. Monique Begin, said the day after the Budget was brought down: "Now listen, I am no longer in politics so I am not going to approach this in a partisan way". Ms. Begin, well known for her radical

March 19, 1991
-Vf.
[DOT] v;
t

Supply
position on health care and her emphasis on universality and former Liberal minister in the Trudeau government, told Canadians: "Listen, don't worry, stop listening to what the Liberals, my former colleagues, are saying; stop listening to those people. The present government is introducing budgetary restrictions, that is clear, but it will have no impact on our national medicare system". That is what Ms. Begin said. Is there anyone more qualified and more competent on the Liberal side than Monique Begin, who was a minister? She said, without a hint of partisan politics, to stop scaring people.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a few other scare tactics indulged in by Liberals and New Democrats in the riding of Saint-Maurice during the campaign leading up to the election on November 21, 1988.
At the time, the NDP candidate and the candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada were walking around the riding in Shawinigan, and they went to the senior citizens clubs and told them-I remember they wrote about it in the papers: "If you vote for the Conservatives in the next election, you will lose your federal old age pension". The Liberals and the New Democrats said this in my riding. They said it in the riding of Champlain, in Trois-Rivieres, in Richelieu-Yamaska and in all the ridings in the heartland of Quebec.
And today, they want to scare senior citizens again, people who are more vulnerable than the average Canadian, by telling them: Watch out for the Conservatives! They are going to abolish medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the senior citizens in my riding that we, as a government, will continue to respect their heritage and the country they worked so hard to build. Canada is my country, I have always said so and I always will, and the senior citizens in my riding may rest assured that the Progressive Conservative Government of Canada will continue to ensure they receive the best possible care for many years. We will keep up the good work in this area.
However, I also want to say this to my senior citizens- and Opposition members may wish to consider this-that we have a problem in Canada, in all the provinces including Quebec, Ontario, the West and the Maritimes, and whether we happen to be separatists in Quebec or federalists, the problem is the same. Mr. Speaker, senior
citizens, as you may know, take far too much medication. This is a serious problem. We must take a long hard look at over-medication among senior citizens and take steps to remedy this social problem. There is a whole range of measures that can be taken by the provincial governments.
The Government of Quebec-I realize I am not supposed to say the members of the Bloc Quebecois are not in the House, Mr. Speaker, but I think you can draw your own conclusions regarding their absence here in the House. Mr. Speaker, members-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am soriy but I must remind the hon. member that we have a tradition in this house not to allude to absences. There are 30 parliamentary committees currently sitting and people who are listening to us now must know that hon. members have also much work to do in those committees. I recognize again the hon. member for Saint-Maurice.


Denis Pronovost: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since we are not allowed to mention the absence or presence of other members, I will tell you that Bloc quebecois members in Ottawa do not even have secretaries in their offices. When you phone them, you end up talking to answering machines. So much for those people who, supposedly, are in Ottawa to protect Quebec interests. We will probably have an opportunity later to talk about this.
I would like to conclude by saying that it is very important, in a debate such as this, to tell Canadians that our difficult financial situation is due to previous governments. The problem will not be solved in a matter of one, two or even five years. It is quite impossible with a national debt such as ours. But despite the enormous pressures that the national debt puts on our budget, our government is committed to providing the same health services to Canadian citizens across the country.
What we have to do, Mr. Speaker, and I want to invite my Liberal colleagues, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North, to think about that, is to allocate these funds in a way that would be more efficient and forwardlooking. That would allow us to provide the best service that Canadian men and women can expect from the Parliament of Canada.

March 19, 1991


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I certainly compliment the member on his debating points.
I would like to make a very short comment and then pose two simple questions.
When he indicated that no other country spends more for health and welfare, I think it has to be recorded that while Canada spends about 8.5 per cent of its Gross National Product on health care, the United States spends more. We have a far better health care system and therefore we must preserve it. In terms of the need for other programs to make our system more productive and cost efficient, my colleague from Halifax and I this morning alluded to that. In fact, we are prepared to offer those initiatives to you and we have mentioned some.
My two questions are: I would like to ask this member if he and his government are considering the application or implementation of user fees?
Second, what legislation is intended to help enforce the principles of medicare that now do not exist in the current Canada Health Act?


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his comments concerning the speech I have just made.
I should like, however, to correct his first statement. I indicated a while ago quite clearly that among the countries of the world with a health care system Canada spent the most per capita for health care services as a proportion to its GNP. I insisted twice on that fact. So the hon. member is quite right to say that the Americans spend a lot more, although their system is a private one. But I referred to most industrialized nations with a public health system.
Canada is by far the country which spends the most. People in Canada are not more stupid than people in the Scandinavian countries; they have a right to expect their government to spend their taxes the way they want, and God knows they do pay a lot and will continue to pay for a long time. Everybody knows that there are taxes in Canada. We are just starting to reimburse the accumulated national debt. They have a right to know that this money-I am not talking here about the cuts-will be spent more efficiently.
There is another point I should like to raise as a result of the hon. member for Winnipeg North's question.
Supply
The cuts in Mr. Wilson's last budget will affect payments to the provinces, but Canadians should realize that, all in all, these cuts represent only half of one per cent. Only half of one per cent of the total revenues the Canadian provinces are getting now.
The federal government did not tell the provinces to reduce their health care spending by half of one per cent. When we compare the budgets of the various provinces, we realize that the Ontario government budget was increasing at a rate greater than inflation, while the budget of the federal budget was increasing at a rate smaller than inflation-
I wish all governments in the provinces and territories would imitate the federal government instead of increasing their budgets by 10 or 12 per cent. Last year, some municipalities-my colleagues could deal with that-increased their budgets by as much as 15 or 20 per cent, while inflation was a lot less than that.
The federal government is making an honest effort. But if we want all Canadians to benefit eventually from our budget restrictions it is imperative that the efforts made by the federal government be duplicated by all provincial governments, all municipalities, Hydro-Quebec, Ontario Hydro, in short by all Canadians involved. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if the serious, difficult and sometimes unpopular efforts we make in this House are not followed by similar efforts on the part of the provincial governments, Canada will not have the promising future we are all looking forward to enjoy. That is where we are at in the national debate, Mr. Speaker.
I have stated over and over again that I am not a separatist, that I am a Quebecer and a Canadian-I am proud to be a Canadian-but I know that the people in Quebec are listening to the members of the Bloc Quebecois who are telling them: Look at the size of the national debt in Ottawa, let us split and we will get rid of that.
The national debt happens to be the main problem. It is our problem of national unity. Quebecers are slowly drifting away from the country because they consider that the national debt is much too heavy. They are quite right. It is on that point that I seek the co-operation of the Liberal and NDP members.
If as members of this Parliament we can find a reasonable solution, acceptable to the federal, provincial, and municipal governments to deal with our national debt problem in the foreseeable future, I believe that we can save our country and give Canada a fresh start in

March 19, 1991
Supply
a renewed federation. In conclusion, I would say that when all the members of this federal Parliament understand this fundamental issue, we can look to a better future, and present, for our children, as well as for the Quebec and the Canadian people.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I just have two quick questions for the hon. member. I would like to give him another chance to try and answer the veiy easy question from the member from Winnipeg. Yes or no, does he support user fees?
The second point follows from his comments where he said that the funds should be used more effectively, an argument that I can support. I would like to ask his views on whether he would support new measures which would ensure that those funds which are transferred from the federal government to the provinces that are supposed to be spent on health and post-secondary education are, indeed, spent on health and post-secondary education?
The member may know that, at least in my province, there are many allegations the Government of British Columbia takes federal money designated for health and education and spends it on paving highways. I would like to know the member's views on that matter as well.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the questions, I would say we must, first, maintain the universality of the medicare system in Canada. We will allow provincial governments and the federal government to review the conditions because we cannot be trapped or locked in a system that is fifteen or twenty years old. That is what counts. We must consider all the options, but retaining at the same time our national system.
On the second point, I would say I agree with the member of the New Democratic Party. Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, I am not at all convinced that all provincial governments really use the transfer payments or for that matter the health care transfer payments for that purpose.
My colleague talked about British Columbia. We could easily say the same thing about Quebec. I am not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec govemement uses the money we transfer each year for health care. And we have a very tangible example of that in Quebec with the tax on gas. That money is intended in part for road repairs, but what we see in reality is that only 35 per cent of it is used for the purpose it was established for initially.
As for user fees, frais moderateurs as they are called in Quebec, one thing remains: they are not at the heart of the matter. The issue is not user fees. The question is not whether you're going to charge $3 or $5 or what have you every time someone shows up at the hospital's emergency department in Shawinigan-Sud or Grand-Mere.
That is not the way we are going to solve health care problems in Canada. It is not by charging a tax here and a tax there in an effort to discourage users that the problems are going to be solved. What we must do-I will say it one last time in conclusion-is to review the way we spend the money, which is up to $60 billion every year. That is the main problem we have in Canada as far as health care is concerned: we must review the whole process and find more efficient ways to do it, Mr. Speaker. Other countries have done it, and Canada has the resources to do the same.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on this very important motion which has been introduced by my colleague from Winnipeg, and has been amended today by the New Democratic member from Surrey.
From the debate earlier on, there were some serious questions, I suppose from all sides of this House, concerning exactly what was the intent of the member from Winnipeg in bringing this motion forward. Some questions were raised by the minister of health regarding whether this is in fact a question of confidence in the government. The member wanted to know if the vote would mean that if the government supported the motion it would have to resign and call an election. Well,
I don't think that would be such a bad idea, in any case,
March 19, 1991

Mr. Speaker, because I think if you check, most Canadians would like to have an election so they could express their opinions on the actions of this government.
I refer also, just on this particular procedural point, to the comments that were made earlier by the member from Winnipeg, who made some very important interjections in this House regarding procedure. I understand he has had some previous experience debating the role of this House, the rules of this Chamber, in particular motions and the work of private members. He made some very compelling arguments, I think, suggesting the Minister of National Health and Welfare may have been wrong on this matter. I leave it to people much more learned in procedure and policy than myself to decide that. But obviously the NDP member from Winnipeg who made those interjections on procedure made some very important points.
That is the setting for the debate we are having today. I trust the government members will hear the arguments presented by my colleague from Winnipeg, and will be brave and show all Canadians that they do in fact have a commitment to medicare. What is the big deal? Show your support for medicare.
I would like to just pick up on some of the comments that were just made by the member across the way. I appreciated his support on the question I put to him. Because, of course, when we are talking about health care in Canada, it means we are also talking not only about what the federal government does, but of course what the provinces have to do as well.
The question, and I think a very important one, is how do we go about setting health policy in Canada.
Most current historians would give the credit for the start of medicare in Canada to the CCF government in Saskatchewan. Tommy Douglas is noted for that. Many will recall better than I the fight that was put up at the time by some who were against medicare. Tommy Douglas and the CCF, the forerunners of the New Democratic Party, really showed the rest of Canada exactly what we had to do in this country to ensure we had a health care policy that was going to ensure above all else, if there are some basics in life, health care has to be one of them, and that it is a duty and an obligation of government.
Supply
The federal government has some significant powers and responsibilities in this field, especially when we are dealing with spending powers. That has often been the club that the Government of Canada has used with the provinces, and some of that was evident during the debate on the Canada Health Act, the discussions at that time over user fees-another question I put to my colleague across the way, and I appreciated his answer. He is probably quite right that three $5 user fees here and there are not going to solve some of the problems we have in health care policy.
But he did respond positively to my comment and suggestion about how do we deal with the questions of federal transfer payments of funds, particularly in health care. I think he used the words in his comments about how do we use those funds effectively?
Some time ago I asked the Secretary of State, who is responsible to some degree for post-secondary education-it was in a debate like this, it turned out to be a quiet debate that afternoon-I asked if he could tell this House with confidence that those funds the federal government was transferring to the provinces for health and education was spent on health and education.
Mr. Speaker, the response from the minister was I suppose a little scary; he said that we would have to trust him. He said that we would have to trust him that in fact that was happening. I am glad to see that he has some colleagues on his side who maybe do not quite share his confidence that that is happening. I had mentioned British Columbia. The member across the way had mentioned Quebec and his concerns there. It sounds like they are about the same. In fact, if we start looking at the constitutional position of the Liberal Government of Quebec and the Social Credit Government of British Columbia, they are starting to sound almost the same.
It is no wonder that the Liberal Government of Quebec and the Social Credit Government of British Columbia might use federal health and education dollars to pave highways. That is an allegation that many people have made.
With regard to what we have to do with medicare though, I am more convinced than ever, we as parliamentarians must debate what is the effective role of government in Canada today, in society today. Many often on the opposite benches argue that the govern-

March 19, 1991
Supply
ment has to get out of everything because government restrains and restricts the individual. We have to let the benefits trickle down, when of course usually they dry up.
I would argue that if there is one particular field where we need expanded government participation in, it is co-operation at all levels between the federal and the provincial governments in health care. It is an old cliche I suppose about an ounce or prevention is worth a pound of cure. I think we need a revolution in health care in Canada.
Let us start at the community level. Let us start there rather than what many people have written about in our country, that we have put a heavier emphasis, if you like, in terms of technology and equipment and large buildings, that we have been top heavy in terms of our approach to health care in Canada. I am not an expert on this matter. I usually prefer to stand up and talk about trees, fish and VIA Rail. Nevertheless, it is an important initiative to talk about health care in this country because it is one that in the end is going to affect us all.
The motion that is presented today by the member from Winnipeg is an important one because as I argued, if there is a way now or a greater room for participation by government, I would say it is to work at all levels on the health care field and most importantly, to work with the schools. We know it is going to be some years from now, when who knows what happens in some years, when they see ourselves or children with the vaccination mark. People will wonder what that was. It is how we have evolved and changed.
I think if we are going to start developing a health care policy, we have to go beyond just a debate about transfer payments and funds. We have to talk and work with the provinces who obviously have the major responsibility for the delivery of health care. We have to work with the school districts and other areas as well to ensure that a comprehensive health care policy is developed. In that way we can ensure that national standards are there.
I am not one, like the Government of British Columbia, and some provincial governments across the countiy, to sort of piecemeal take apart our health care system.
What Canadians call upon this Parliament to do is to guarantee some degree of accessibility so that those services are available to all Canadians, no matter where they live. Again, I approach this because I think health care is one of those basics, one of the pillars of this country that we are talking about and is also one of the foundations of just a better nation of people.
That means that even Prince George in my riding has had to battle, if you like, with the provincial government in trying to get a cancer clinic located in Prince George. Yet what does the B.C. government do? It expands or builds new facilities, if you can believe that, in Kelowna and Kamloops, arguing about geography and what have you.
There is a clear example where a provincial government has made a decision like that. Unfortunately, in this case it is a bad decision. I am also reminded by the many community health clinics that approach me and talk about how difficult it is to attract professionals to stay in their communities.
I am sure I am not alone. Many members have smaller, rural communities in their ridings. The community clinic, Belmont in my riding for example, advertises in the newspapers in the U.K. to try to get doctors to come there. I do not know what kind of newspapers. It is trying to promote and bring professionals like that to our communities.
We produce some nice pamphlets with snowmobiles on them. We used to have a northern tax allowance in some parts of the country to try to encourage people to come to those parts of British Columbia.
Again, without dragging it out, accessibility is an important question not just in terms of across the border of the province with the United States in the band of the major population as we know it, but also in the distance that is growing in many areas between the urban and rural communities, often within provinces themselves.
Also, I would argue strongly. I think there is a role for the federal government and this Parliament to use its spending clout. That is what it is all about. Mr. Speaker, you know that. When the federal government sits down
March 19, 1991

with the provinces, it hammers out agreements on questions like universality which have to be written into any kind of agreement. Public administration of health care is written into any agreements with the provinces as well.
That is what it comes down to in terms of governing the country, in using the spending clout, if you like, Mr. Speaker. I have suggested that maybe we could use a little more clout in some cases with the provinces which were not doing the proper kind of spending on health care that there should be.
I mentioned earlier about prevention. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. There is not a better way to spend money than ensuring that young people, particularly in schools, are guaranteed their health care.
With regard to health promotion, my colleague from Surrey has had to start a health watch, because we have to keep track of what the government members are doing to our health care system. Daily, we have reports from the different provinces about how they are, piecemeal, taking apart our health care system.
That is not the kind of health care system we want to have in this country. I would encourage the members opposite to really show their courage. I know that they will be called upon to do that at some point in the mandate of this government when they are called to go before the people again.
There could not be a better issue to get support from your constituents on than health care. I would strongly encourage the members opposite to support our amendment to the motion and to support the main motion as well.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a few questions to my colleague from Prince George.
He mentioned the matter of trust, and I think this is something that we have to question with regard to the government's motives with respect to health care. During the last election, comments were made by government members about the level playing field with regard to the free trade agreement and so on.
They made comments about how the Americans were concerned about our social programs and we were notified by the government members that our social programs would not be affected. Yet, we have seen the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which
Supply
now means the government has completely withdrawn its contribution to unemployment insurance and which brings about the level playing field that the Americans were calling for.
We have seen the clawback to the old age pensions whereby the social programs are being attacked there.
We have seen the cutbacks in the transfer payments to the provinces. We have seen the equalization grants being attacked. We have also heard comments from a former cabinet minister of the Conservative government with regard to the commitments to keep the Canadian dollar high, all part of the free trade agreement. When the member talked about the matter of trust, I say to him that it is important that we also identify the fact that the free trade agreement possibly has some of the ramifications of what the government is trying to bring about here.
I would like to ask my colleague from Prince George- Bulkley Valley if he identifies that as probably the biggest problem we have today with regard to the cutbacks in our social programs.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kootenay East for raising some very important questions. I know the tenacity with which he has raised other matters within the party and the caucus, and I know the hard work he has been doing in his riding on many issues, such as health care.
I made notes and there are three points which I picked up during his comments. The first one is trust. He is absolutely right. I suppose we have reached the stage where I am not sure that this government can be trusted. Certainly the question of trust is reflected in the correspondence I receive from my constituents about this government in particular and, unfortunately, regarding all elected people. That makes it more difficult for those who feel there is an alternative, a different way to do things. Of course we in the New Democratic Party believe very much that there is a different and better way to run and administer the affairs of the Government of Canada in order to develop a better country.
Some of the Conservative members opposite got a little excited when my hon. friend made reference to a former colleague of theirs who, during discussions on the free trade agreement, made some references to a secret deal between the Canadian government and the U.S. government in terms of letting our dollar go up and develop the level playing field, et cetera.

March 19, 1991
Supply
We will find out the truth about that as time goes by. Maybe Mr. Stevens will be writing a book some day and we will find out the real story behind a lot of it. But we do know this-


Mr. Epp:: He wasn't even part of the agreement.


Brian L. Gardiner: He was not even part of the agreement. Well, Mr. Stevens will write the book and we will see just exactly what the truth is behind it all, the truth behind the higher dollar.
Last night during discussions here in the House about the softwood lumber tariff, a subject with which I am very familiar, and how the rising dollar has helped destroy our forest industry in this country, we learned the thinking on the part of this government is that the memorandum of understanding on the softwood lumber tariff has done the job. Well, the job was done by the increase in the Canadian dollar that this government allowed in co-operation with their friends in Washington, D.C.
The question is, why does this government do this. I think perhaps we should look at Ronald Reagan's memoirs or something like that to get to the bottom of the thinking of this government. It is their view that the freeing up of government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Several members have questions and comments. Therefore, I must interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Sarnia- Lambton has the floor.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the amendment put forward by the NDP adds the following words: "specifically its original commitment to restore 50 per cent federal funding for provincial health care costs".
The member who has just spoken was, in essence, running down the federal government.
Now they are coming through with an amendment of this kind that we would assume means the restoration of costs shared of all provincial health expenditures. That would cost $5.4 billion.
Is the member aware that this could probably replace provincial health care dollars? Can the member be honest with Canadians and tell them where they would get the $5.4 billion that the amendment he is supporting would have the government come forth with? What would they do? They should be honest with Canadians. Will they eliminate programs such as the illiteracy reduction program? Would they create job creation programs? Would they get the money from family allowances? Let's come clean with Canadians as to where they would find the $5.4 billion. Would it be from research, from the green plan? Be honest with Canadians for once and tell us where you would find these dollars. It is easy to come out with these amendments.
It is time that the NDP, rather than call down this government that spends $42 billion a year on human resource development, covering health and education, told Canadians where it would find the money.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have had plenty of advice from my colleagues and others to answer the member's question.
First of all, I suggest that it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister is not here right now because it was the Prime Minister who said across this country in 1983 that he thought that federal health care funds should try and reach 50-50. When the Prime Minister returns to the Chamber, I know the member will ask his own Prime Minister about his position on that.
The member asks: Where are you going to get the money from? Here are two quick answers. I would seek from the members opposite unanimous consent on a motion of the House to amend the budget to eliminate the entertainment tax which would bring in $1.1 billion to the Government of Canada; and I would eliminate the $153 a day to the Senate. Let's spend that money on health care policy instead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order. I ask the honorable members to revert to the subject before the House.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise to participate in this debate. I compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg North for bringing forth this very important topic for discussion in the House today. There is no



March 19, 1991

question in my mind that every member of Parliament in this House strongly supports medicare and is fully committed to medicare. I for one certainly would reaffirm, if ever there were any doubt, my commitment to medicare.
As an aside, there has been some discussion with respect to the motion that is before us, which of course is an opposition motion presented on supply and therefore is a confidence motion in the government. Naturally, in accordance with long-standing tradition, government members will vote against the motion. However, that is really irrelevant in terms of the government's commitment to medicare.
What is important here is that all members of this House, representing all parts of Canada, stand here today and make known to their constituents and indeed to all Canadians the strong commitment that we have to our health care system in Canada and to medicare. That is what is important: where we stand on the issue and not the health of this particular motion.
Canadians probably value their health care system more than just about anything else that we have in Canada, and for good reason. We all have stories of our experiences travelling abroad. One time when I was in the United States, I had a very minor illness and had to see a local physician and buy some medication. Before it was all finished, it cost me approximately $125. We do not want to see that kind of situation in Canada, and Canadians do not want to see that situation in Canada. Indeed, that is one reason Canadians commit as much money as they do, through their government, to our health care system. In Nova Scotia we have a provincial sales tax of 10 per cent at the moment. That goes toward our health care system.
When we go to the United States and some other countries and pay a sales tax, we do not necessarily get a return for that or the people of that country do not get the health care system that we get in Canada. So, it is something that is important to Canadians and all members of the House should stand today and make that point.
In my province of Nova Scotia, we have what we consider to be a health care system second to none. That
Supply
does not mean, of course, that it cannot be improved. It does not mean that there are not facilities that we would like to have that we do not have. But the fact is we can be very proud, not only of the system in general but, indeed, of the people who make the system, the health care professionals we have in our province.
In my constituency of the South Shore, we have a beautiful new facility in the South Shore Regional Hospital with a dedicated cadre of workers, as we have in our other three hospitals in the South Shore; the Fishermen's Memorial in Lunenburg. I publicly commend and thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare for his support and his financial commitment to the establishment of a drug dependency clinic in the Fishermen's Memorial Hospital.
We also have good facilities in the Queen's County Hospital and the Shelburne Roseway Hospital. All of these benefit, as do Nova Scotians generally benefit, from a very dedicated cadre of health care workers in our province.
Medical services in hospitals, in particular, require more than professionally trained and professionally paid health care workers. They also exist because of the volunteers, the ordinary citizens who commit their time on a voluntary basis to work as auxiliary members within the hospital, as board members or, indeed, in various fund raising projects to support the work. Work that is supported from the public purse, yes, but work that is supported because many Canadians, many Nova Scotians commit their time, energy and enthusiasm to working to raise money and to do voluntarily tasks that contribute to making our health care system what it is.
As an aside, I might say that as a member of Parliament, of course, like all of us in this place, I spend time in Ottawa. No more so than I have to but, nevertheless, I do. I had occasion earlier this year to be a patient at the National Defence Medical Centre, which was the subject of some controversy when the Auditor General's report came down. I am not particularly interested in getting involved in the controversy, because one thing I noticed did not come out at that time was the quality of health care provided in that institution. As a patient there for five days, I have to say that I have never been anywhere where I was so impressed, not just with the professional-

March 19, 1991
Supply
ism of the staff of that institution, but with the friendly environment there in the way they treated me as a patient. I thought it was superb.
Shortly thereafter, when a number of people from that institution went to serve in the Canadian field hospital as part of the Canadian contribution to the coalition in the gulf war, I thought about some of the men and women who had made my stay in hospital a less unhappy occasion than a stay in a hospital might be. Of course, like all Canadians, I am delighted that they are all returning home safely.
While it is sometimes popular to get up and criticize things, I think we also have to be prepared to stand up when things are good and say so publicly. In a sense, I am bootlegging an opportunity to publicly thank the people at the DNDMC for the wonderful service and support I received when I was a patient there.
The issue here is really our commitment to medicare. As someone said earlier in the debate, we can all stand on principle and say we support our medicare system. And of course we do. The issue we have to consider is how tangibly and most effectively do we support that system?
What I seem to hear some of my hon. colleagues opposite saying is, the more money you throw at it, the more you support it. I notice that it does not seem to matter what the program is, many members opposite frequently stand up and say: "No matter how much you spend, you should spend more". That is not really a realistic solution to the problem.
The best way to preserve and provide a solid long-term base for our health care system and the financing of our health care system is, of course, a sound Canadian economy and sound government financing, both at the federal and provincial levels.
That is one of the reasons that this government, in what I consider to be a highly responsible manner as well as priority, has said that we have to put the finances of the nation in order so that we have a sound economy and a basis from which we can ensure the long-term viability of not only our medical and our health care system, but indeed our entire social programs in Canada.
It is well and good to go out and in an hysterical manner try to convince Canadians that we are on the verge of seeing our health care system destroyed. Let there not be any illusions as to why that is going on. People on all sides of this House know how much
Canadians value their health care system. If we go out and try to convince Canadians that it is being destroyed, there might be some partisan advantage in that to my friends opposite.
This is not the first time we have seen that in this House or in this country. I recall in the fall of 1988 the hysterics and the scare tactics that were disgracefully used, in my opinion, in trying to convince Canadians they were going to lose their health care system. I suppose what we have going on in this debate today is an effort to say: "See, we told you so". Guess what, folks: that is not the case.
What we have going on in this country today and indeed in this House is that we have a government that is responsible in handling the affairs of the nation and an opposition, no matter which end of this House we look at, that simply says, no matter what it is: "Spend more, spend more, spend more". That is the order of the day. I am sorry, but that is not what is in the best interests of this country.
We talk about commitment. If we look at the expenditures, transfers to the provinces in the present budget are 14 per cent of expenditures and 27.4 per cent of expenditures are debt charges. That is what we have to get control of. Then we will have the funding we need to spend as much as is appropriate and is needed to allow our health care system and other support systems to continue to grow.
The fact of the matter is that transfers to provinces are increasing by 3.7 per cent this year while at the same time the government is controlling itself to the extent of 3.4 per cent. We will end up without having a medicare system if we do not get the finances of the nation under control. We all have to come to grips with the reality of that situation.
The fact is that Canada is a federal state. The fact is that under our Constitution health care falls within the jurisdiction of the province. The fact is that provinces have a major if not the lead role to play in the handling of decision making with respect to our health care system. Quite simply, the provinces must accept their responsibilities.
We just had a major royal commission on health care in Nova Scotia which, among other things, pointed out very clearly and unequivocally that the challenge of growing health care costs is probably the greatest challenge that is going to be faced by governments in this country, both federally and provincially but particularly
March 19, 1991

provincially, over the next few years. We have to come to grips with that.
We have to ask ourselves a number of questions. EIow do we control that cost so that we can maintain a quality health care system? How do we ensure that we are getting the best value from our expenditures with respect to health care? Do we have to have all the procedures that are there? When new technology comes out, do we necessarily have to go out and acquire it and put it in all facilities? Do people always have to go to hospitals when in fact what they may need is a visit to a doctor? Do people have to attend at the doctor's office as often as they do?
The provinces are going to have to face these types of questions in terms of access to the health care system. The important thing is that we have to have a system that can respond to every need, every health care need of every Canadian. But at the same time, we have to ensure that those valuable resources are used for the benefit of those who need them, and not to provide entertainment for people on sunny days.
We have to also go on and ask other questions. Do we have adequate emphasis on prevention? What is the quality of health education in Canada? Certainly there have been improvements in health education in the schools in recent years, but what is the attitude that students have toward health education?
I have a son in junior high school. I know the attitude that he and many of his friends have with respect to health education. They do not recognize it as the priority that they should recognize it in terms of the school curriculum. It is something that is every bit as important if not more important to them personally than math, reading, social studies and some of the other things.
We have to look at the quality of health education and we have to look at preventive measures. The most cost efficient health care system is one in which we prevent people from becoming ill who, with some appropriate education, in fact would avoid the illnesses that have got them there.
We have to ask questions about institutionalizing people. It is a simple solution to a problem to say that we will institutionalize them, but that may not be the best
Supply
solution. Not only may it not be the best solution from a cost point of view, but it may not be the best solution from the point of view of the individual.
This takes us a little beyond simple health care to the question of geriatric care. Are we adequately responding as a nation to the implications of the fact that we live in an aging society, that the percentage of our population who are senior citizens is growing all the time? How are we going to cope with the financial implications of that?
Should we be just simply pushing people toward institutionalization, or should we be making greater efforts to make it possible for people to stay and have independence within their own homes? It seems to me that these are questions we should be asking.
Our system in Canada is unquestionably a good one if we compare it to some others. For example, the cost of health care in Canada is equivalent to 8.9 per cent of the GNP, whereas in the United States it is 11.6 per cent of the GNP and at that there are 30 million people without access to proper health care in the United States.


An hon. member:: It is 40 million.


Peter L. McCreath: One of my hon. friends says 40 million. Let it be 40 million. The bottom line is that we have a significantly better system. We all know it and we want to maintain the quality of it.
The provinces must take the lead in pursuing reform. For many of these questions, the answers must come from them because they are the delivery agents. It is all well and good for them simply to say to the federal government: "Give us more money". Let us be frank, the federal government has no assurance that the money is even going to be used for health care.
Let us face it that provinces can raise revenues as well. They can raise taxes too. I do not know what my hon. friends opposite think about that, but the fact of the matter is it is there.
The federal government does have a role to play obviously in providing financial support. The federal government also can and does play a significant role in encouraging co-operation among the provinces. Indeed every six months there is a federal-provincial meeting of ministers, officials and so on. There is a variety of

March 19, 1991
Supply
advisory committees which attempt to explore solutions to problems by working together, and that is as it should be.
In the last two years, for example, several new initiatives central to the better management of health resources have been launched. I would like to mention a couple, if I may.
In 1989, the federal government, the provinces and territories created a new Canadian co-ordinating office for health technology assessment and a new National Health Information Council was established. A project was undertaken on health care quality assurance and a paper was commissioned on medical manpower issues and the strategies available to better manage human resources. There is a role for the federal government to act as a co-ordinating agency.
We have to remember first and foremost that we have our responsibilities as a federal government, but then the provinces have theirs and they must live up to theirs.
In conclusion, what we are here to talk about is our commitment to our health care system. It seems to me there are four bases upon which Canadians can establish and confirm, as it were, their commitment to our health care system. First, we must have a cadre of well trained and committed health care professionals supported by a large number of volunteers committed to the system. That we have.
Second, we must have good health care facilities, the infrastructure for health care facilities. While these things can always be improved, compared to the other countries of the world it seems to me we have pretty excellent facilities.
Third, Canadians themselves must believe in the importance of our health care system and our medicare system. I would submit that every member of this House would recognize the commitment that Canadians have and the high level of value that Canadians place in their health care system.
Fourth, we must have a solid financial base to ensure the long-term security of that health care system. That comes from governments that manage their affairs soundly and that live within their means. It ensures that we have sound financial management of the government, which in turn will lead to a sound economy in the country. That is probably the most important reaffirmation and confirmation of the long-term viability and future of our health care system in Canada.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments and to professions of commitment on the part of the government to the health care system in Canada, while all the while it is ensuring that the provinces have inadequate resources to fund their medical systems.
If the member wants to look close to home, he will see the Newfoundland budget just last week with cuts in beds in the health care system there. In the Manitoba budget it is in the same situation. The budgets of today will no doubt be reacting to last month's federal budget.
We see the implications of the cuts to medicare, the cuts in transfers to the provinces, very quickly by seeing the cuts that have been made at the provincial level. Let us not pretend that this government's budgetary and financial measures are not having immediate detrimental impacts on the health care system across this country.
Let us not pretend that we could not predict that is what was going to happen. After three years in a row of cuts by this government we are seeing major inroads into the quality of our health care system.
It is interesting-and I will come to my question in a moment-that the Liberal Party moved the motion referring to a commitment to medicare. After all, when it was in government, on at least two very clear occasions it also cut funding from the federal government to the provinces for medicare. While in government both the Tories and the Liberals have ensured that resources available to the provinces for health care have been cut. In opposition, both those parties say different things.
If we go back and look at the record, we see that when the Liberals were making cuts the present Minister of Finance was chastising them for undermining the future health and post-secondary education prospects of Canadians. As soon as the role reversal takes place, we have cuts made by the Conservative governments and protestations by former Liberal government members.
March 19, 1991

We have both parties attacking medicare when they are in government and, when they are in opposition, saying positive things about the health care system and the need for further support.
I want to ask the member two questions. In terms of determinants of health care, we are well aware that lower income Canadians are much more subject to problems with their health than those Canadians who are better off. Their problems with nutrition, problems with housing, and problems with lower levels of education illustrate themselves in a much greater use of the health care system and much more morbidity in that community.
I want to ask the member one very simple question. If he is so concerned about the health care system, why is it that his government has chosen to attack social programs across this country, putting more and more people into more difficulties with poverty, attacking the veiy poorest of our society? Why is he doing that if he is so interested in ensuring that the health care system survives?
I want to ask him one last question. I would like to ask him who he thinks said the following in 1983: "The problem with medicare arose because the federal government reneged on commitments it made to the provinces and cut back very drastically on the dollars it sent to the provinces who are charged with administering and paying for medicare. The problem has arisen because of unilateral arbitrary cutback by the federal government to the provinces who are charged with footing the bill. That is the problem".
I will put the member out of his suspense. That was the present Prime Minister who said that and now, while he is in government, he is of course making exactly those same cuts that he criticized. I wonder if the member might want to comment on the question that I raised.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his contribution to the debate. Indeed I will attempt to respond to his question as best I can.
I think his good friend, the premier of Ontario, is going to find out a little bit about the realities of being in government as opposed to the realities of being in opposition; being in opposition where one can do, as my hon. friend does and say: "Spend more, spend more, spend more. Don't worry about who is going to pay the piper at the end of the day".
Supply
The reality of the situation is that it is not that simple.
I would remind my hon. friend that we are not going to be able to have any social programs at all in this country if we do not get the finances of the nation under control.
My hon. friend uses the example of the recent budget in Newfoundland to illustrate his point. Perhaps I might be permitted to quote the premier of Newfoundland himself who he will admit, I am sure, is a most definitive source. Mr. Wells' comment on the federal government was, and I quote from the news report:
I am kind of relieved, I would say. It will not cause us to make
significant changes to our own budget.
He went on to say that that documents was expected next week. Mr. Wells does not share my hon. friend's view that the federal government's budget is going to interfere.
There is no question that they may have some problem in the financing of the Government of Newfoundland. I know that in our own province all Nova Scotian taxpayers including myself await with trepidation the provincial budget that is going to come down there. They forecast a $30 million deficit this year and, as of four months ago, they had it up to a $150 million deficit. I have some concerns about that.
However the bottom line is-and this is what my hon. fiends in the New Democratic Party seem to forget sometimes-that at some point in the process we have to pay the bills.
I was raised-and maybe it is an old value-to know you have got to cut the cloth according to the pattern. I was brought up to believe that you have to pay your bills, that you just cannot endlessly borrow money and let the thing go and go and go until you have bankrupted the next generation who are left with it.
As I said in my remarks-and I know with assurance that my hon. friend listened very, very carefully to them-the best support for a health care system, as for other programs that Canadians want and value, is a sound basis for the economy of the government as well as for the economy of the nation. That is the strongest basis upon which we can support our health care system.
Unfortunately my hon. friends opposite may not share that view. They have credit cards that evidently do not have bills sent back to them at the end of the month. They have credit cards that evidently do not accrue

March 19, 1991
Supply
interest. But it is not that way in the real world and it is not that way in government.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has nothing to do with the remarks being made by my colleague from Nova Scotia.
I wonder if I might seek unanimous consent of the House for my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt to make a brief statement of personal privilege. I indicate to the House that it would take no longer than 30 to 40 seconds, and I seek unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House agree with the request of the opposition House leader?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.
As members will know, I just returned from a trip to Trinidad and Tobago which caused a great deal of controversy. I stand here to apologize unequivocally to the members of this House, to the leadership of my party, to the people of Canada, and to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago for my actions.
I shall henceforth not engage in activities outside my responsibilities as critic. I have taken this statement to the leadership of my party and apologized to my leader and to my Liberal colleagues for this unfortunate incident.


ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-HEALTH CARE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pagtakhan (p. 18648), and the amendment of Mr. Karpoff (p. 18662).
Brian L. Gardiner: I have just a very quick question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member could pass on his opinions to me about whether he thinks there should be guarantees that federal funds on health and education sent to the provinces are actually spent on health and post-secondary education.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, naturally, as with all members of this House, I would like to think I could control what other people can do, but one of the things I have learned in life is that one cannot do that. One of the things I learned when I studied the history and the politics of my country is that we are a federal state.
The provinces have their responsibilities, and the Government of Canada has its responsibilities. As much as the Government of Canada, in its wisdom and particularly because we have such an excellent and wise government in Canada today, might wish to dictate to the provinces of the country what they shall do, unfortunately that is not the nature of our federal system in Canada and unfortunately that is not possible for us to do. It is phoney, unrealistic and fundamentally dishonest to suggest that it would be appropriate for this government and this House to attempt to do that.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise tonight to take part in this debate on this motion:
That this House reaffirm its commitment to Medicare.
I feel very strongly that one of the saddest facts in our country is the growing gap that separates the health care of the rich and the poor.
Health care statistics speak for themselves. Well-off Canadians live longer and healthier lives than do poorer, low-income families. In my view, the health care gap can be measured by two standards: the have provinces and the have not provinces.
This can be translated into terms of people, the gap between the high income Canadians and the low income Canadians, which also translates into 10 to 11 years of longevity for high income Canadians compared to that of low income Canadians.
It was in 1986 when the present government finally recognized the health care gap. Let me quote what one of Health and Welfare Canada's many documents said: "The first challenge we face is to find ways of reducing inequities in the health of low versus high income groups in Canada".
Instead of doing this, it introduced Bill C-69 which limited funding to the provinces. In the next two years, Prince Edward Island, which is the smallest province in Canada, will lose $12 million in transfer payments. This

March 19, 1991

will spell higher taxes, less social programs and, most of all, the cutting of Atlantic Canada's lifeline.
The fabric of social programs is starting to fray and medicare will be the first to go. Smaller provinces or territories will not be able to hold the system together or to support the development of the new and innovative health programs that are needed.
How can the federal government expect a small province or territory to maintain national health care standards, given that it has slashed Established Programs Financing. Moreover, the estimates of accumulative loss to provincial and territorial health care funding from 1986-87 to 1991-95 will total at least $22 billion.
It is frightening what this government is doing to what once was called a sacred trust of our country and our community. It is ironic that Canada has been held up as a model for the United States while we ourselves, are in danger of losing our medicare and ending up with a worse system than they have with user fees, extra billings and, most of all, two systems; one for the rich and one for the poor.
Speaking of my own province, we have a small tax base with 125,000 or 130,000 people. Has the Government of Canada forgotten the small areas of this country? With an already aging population and with the youth of the province going to have to leave and relocate in the Golden Triangle of central Canada, P.E.I. has a higher than average age group.
With this age group comes a greater demand for health care. Of course, with a greater demand for health care comes a greater need for financing. The freeze in federal-provincial transfer payments, as was said in the House a few minutes ago, has already resulted in the harshest budget ever handed down in Newfoundland.
Nine hundred health care jobs were lost; 360 hospital beds were closed. If this plan of action continues, health care will be eliminated.
In conclusion, I just want to say that I have heard the member opposite from South Shore speaking that his commitment to medicare will continue. I hope that the members of this House will see that we will not lose this sacred trust that is famous and renowned world-wide.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether or not there is a predisposition in the Chamber to apply the vote just taken to the next issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote is on the main motion in the name of Mr. Pagtakhan.
Is it the pleasure of the Elouse to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Can I be dispensed from ringing the bells?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived. Motion negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.30 p.m., this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 20, 1991