PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 1--Canada Health Act
Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): It is moved by myself, seconded by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), that
WHEREAS the federal government continues to claim both moral and legal authority to enforce compliance with the Canada Health Act; and
WHEREAS unilateral changes to the Established Programs Financing arrangements have generated massive federal savings by shifting costs to the provinces; and
WHEREAS the federal government's 1995 budget has clearly indicated that it will reduce cash transfers to health care, a decision which will undermine the strength of Canada's health system; and
WHEREAS the continued federal role in health is essential to support comparable and adequate standards of health care delivery across Canada.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge that the federal government recognize and maintain its responsibilities for essential programming as stated in the Canada Health Act.
Madam Speaker: Order please. I am unable to accept the seconder for this motion. I wonder if the honourable member for Morris would like to identify a different seconder.
Mr. Pitura: Madam Speaker, I do, the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).
Madam Speaker: Thank you. That is acceptable.
Motion presented.
Mr. Pitura: Madam Speaker and honourable members of this House, I am pleased to rise today during private members' hour. I am also very new at this and how to speak on what I feel is a very important subject, that is, proposed changes to the Canada Health Act by the federal Liberal government. The changes currently being proposed at the federal level will have long-term damaging effects on the province and the people of Manitoba. Throughout this government's term in office, the people of Manitoba have clearly identified health as a public priority. My government has reflected this sentiment by spending over one-third of the total provincial budget on health, the highest percentage allocated of any province in Canada.
Currently the federal government is considering passage of Bill 76, the Canada Health and Social Transfer Act This bill will replace the current Established Program Financing arrangement. Honourable members, this bill, if passed, represents the most significant federal fiscal retrenchment in the history of Canada's social programs. The effect of Bill 76 will have a disastrous impact on provinces such as Manitoba, whose citizens depend on the financial support of the government of Canada to maintain a quality level of health care.
I believe Bill 76 is a perfect example of the federal Liberal government saying one thing while doing another. On the one hand, the federal government continues to maintain its legal and moral authority to compel compliance with the Canada Health Act. On the other hand, the federal Liberals are offloading costs and their responsibility on the people of Manitoba. Under the Canada Health and Social Transfer, as much as $7 billion, that is, $7 billion of federal funding currently allocated to the provinces, will be withdrawn over two years. Since 1985 the federal government has already reduced health transfers by $30 billion, an amount which has had serious consequences for the province and for the people of Manitoba.
We cannot even begin to comprehend the serious repercussions which Bill 76 will have for the families and communities of our province. Madam Speaker, the Canada Health Act has five guiding principles: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility. My government has been tireless in its efforts to uphold these principles in our health care system. This has been the responsibility of my government and of the federal government. Further, it is these five principles which have formed the basis and foundation for health care in this country and in this province. It is these principles which have given us a standard of health care which is second to none and is the source of envy by other less fortunate countries. Many others look to us as a model for a system of health care which provides services to all and which does not turn away those who most need the assistance of government.
The federal Liberal government's 1995 budget has clearly shown that it plans to reduce cash transfers to health care. What will happen if the federal Liberals pass Bill 76? What kind of example will the federal Liberals set for the nations of the world then? I believe that the decision to implement Bill 76 will undermine the strength of Canada's health care system. This is a serious undertaking. Who are the federal Liberals thinking of when they propose this bill? They are not thinking of the people of Canada and they are certainly not thinking of the people of Manitoba. There is no other motivation, at least none that I can see, behind Bill 76 besides that of the federal Liberal government trying to offload their financial responsibilities to the taxpayers of Manitoba.
Madam Speaker, I would be the last person to say that governments should spend more money. In fact, that is why I joined government--to play a part in the important task of putting our financial houses in order. I do not believe this will be achieved through this bill. Yes, the federal Liberals will have reduced their costs, but at whose expense? These unilateral changes to the established program's financing arrangements will generate massive federal savings by shifting the costs to the provinces. I believe that there are savings to be made at the federal level which could be made within the confines of the existing program. But the federal Liberal government is not looking at those options. They are taking the easy way out and have made Manitoba taxpayers the ones who will bear the financial burden.
* (1710)
The federal Liberal government, via Bill 76, is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars out of the coffers of provincial governments. There is no way that this can have anything but a serious and negative impact on the province of Manitoba. But, Madam Speaker, Bill 76 only indicates what will happen up to April 1997. Then what? We the people in the province of Manitoba need to be assured of the federal government's fiscal commitments. It is unconscionable that the federal Liberals will not tell the provinces what their future financial commitments will be through their provincial governments.
Madam Speaker, let there be no doubt that these commitments which are rightfully those of the federal government, not only are these administrative commitments but they are also entrenched moral obligations on the part of the federal government. Canadians, and especially Manitobans, are all demanding greater protection and, more importantly, greater accountability from the federal government regarding their long-term goals and intentions with health care. Manitobans need to know what these long-term goals are. Manitoba needs a continued federal government role in our national health care system. A strong federal role is essential in order to sustain the five principles of the Canada Health Act and to support comparable and adequate standards of health care delivery across Canada. The federal Liberal government, instead of engaging in time-consuming rhetoric about health care in Canada, should follow the example of the government of Manitoba. We have undertaken substantial policy initiatives in health care which has made health care second to none in Canada.
My government spends more than any other province on health care. This year my government will spend $1.85 billion on health care. Since 1988, more than 44 cents of every new spending dollar has been used for health care, while funding for home care has been doubled. Also, since 1988, more than 675 personal home care beds have been added to Manitoba's health care system. In addition, this year's Health capital plan provides for the construction of more than 500 personal home care beds.
Other commitments include health care provided closer to home through community-based care; community nurse resource centres; a fully integrated drug information network, which will potentially save millions of dollars in abuse; and expanded Support Services to Seniors. We also have, as a central tenet of our health care plan, the desire to promote healthy lifestyles. We will continue our campaign to stop smoking. This can be seen in our legislation which has been implemented that restricts cigarette sales to people under 18 years of age, and we have eliminated smoking in most public buildings.
Reducing substance abuse by Manitoba's youth is the goal of the Youth Addiction, Prevention and Education Fund which supports more than 50 community initiatives annually. Support has been provided to the University of Manitoba Sport and Exercise Research Institute to study aging, obesity, the role of physical activity and diet in osteoporotic fractures, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. We will continue to provide a more responsive health care system that emphasizes prevention.
As we have clearly shown, our first objective is to protect the health and well-being of every Manitoban. Our focus is on patient care and, unlike the federal Liberals, we are committed to the preservation of medicare. Increasingly in Manitoba, hospitals and health care providers are becoming more and more innovative, demonstrating a growing understanding of their larger, more inclusive role in Manitoba communities.
My greatest fear is that, because of the federal government's withdrawal of needed funds, this innovation will be stifled, and the gains we have made as a government and a province will have been in vain. I firmly believe that the resources we have on hand in Manitoba in our hospitals and health care facilities serve as a catalyst to help build healthy communities for all Manitobans.
Madam Speaker, I cannot help but think of what will happen to the hard-working health care professionals who work in the hospitals and clinics in my constituency. How will Bill 76 affect them and, by extension, entire communities? Will we see people lose their jobs as a result of the federal Liberals' actions. I think of the people who work in the Carman Memorial Hospital and at the Morris General Hospital, and what about the new hospital that is being built at St. Pierre? What about the people who are going to be employed there?
Madam Speaker, the Canada Health Act states, and I will quote directly from the Act: That the parliament of Canada recognizes that future improvements in health will require the co-operative partnership of governments, health professionals, voluntary organizations and individual Canadians.
The government of Manitoba has done more than its share to ensure improvements have been achieved in our health care system. I am calling on the federal Liberal government to uphold the statements and the principles which guide the Canada Health Act. Not only does Bill 76 not stipulate what will occur after April of 1997, but it does not even set out a set of associated principles and objectives. Let there be no doubt about it, Madam Speaker, the actions of the federal Liberal government mean the end of the medicare program as we know it.
In closing, all members of this House must urge the federal government to recognize and maintain its responsibilities for essential programming as stated in the Canada Health Act. Thank you.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his resolution, and I will be strengthening it towards the end of the remarks that I intend to make.
I would like to also commend the members opposite, Madam Speaker, for their intellectual flexibility, and I would like to illustrate with a bit of history why I think that they are to be commended for their intellectual flexibility. I hope in particular that the newer members will pay some close attention to the history of this whole debate.
An Honourable Member: Why not the older members?
Mr. Sale: Well, I hope the older members have already learned it, but perhaps they have not.
Madam Speaker, in 1984, the Honourable Victor Schroeder, who was then the Minister of Finance, pulled together a community group of people and invited members opposite to join in this particular enterprise. We went to Ottawa to lobby the federal government, which had then put in place very severe cuts to the equalization program and the Established Programs Financing Act. As a result of that nonpartisan lobbying trip, Manitoba's finances were improved by over $120 million, lobbying the new Conservative minister, Mr. Michael Wilson.
In 1985, the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney put in place the first of the structural cuts to health and higher education of which the member opposite now has suddenly become aware. In 1985, the transfers were cut by 2 percent per year cumulatively. In other words, the base was reduced 2 percent every year. In 1989-90, the same Mulroney government, with the same Finance minister--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I do know it and I have taught it at the universities and that is why I am trying to share some of it. In 1989-90 the Conservative government then increased the cuts--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
* (1720)
Mr. Sale: In 1989-90, the Mulroney government then increased the cuts from minus two percent to minus three percent. Shame. The effect of these cuts to the end of the Mulroney-imposed freeze in 1994-95, as documented by Dr. Thomas Courchene, a darling of Liberals in their think tank, the C.D. Howe think tank, a darling of both Conservatives and Liberals in terms of the fiscal restraint, so-called, practised by both neoconservatives at the federal level in the last 10 ears. Thomas Courchene has pointed out in Social Canada in the Millennium on page 232 in a table that the Mulroney cuts cost the health care system $32 billion over that nine-year benighted period of their government, so I am very glad to see the members opposite suddenly becoming aware of some of this history.
In 1993-94, the members of the Liberal Party, who were then in opposition federally, most notably the member who has become the Manitoba minister, Mr. Axworthy, stood up in the House of Commons, repeatedly and eloquently, and stated how awful these cuts were, how they would lead to the end of federal transfers, how they would lead to the end of medicare. He called for the repeal of these cuts. He helped groups to make lobbying efforts. Now, as the honourable member has pointed out in his private member's resolution, now that same Manitoba minister stands and points to the cuts that are taking the federal transfer to zero and says, see, they are going to zero.
Well, in opposition he seemed to understand why. It was the formula imposed by the Mulroney government that was taking them to zero. Now, are the Liberals simply continuing the Mulroney cuts? No, they are not. As the member opposite has made it clear, they are making them substantially worse. The Mulroney cuts are costing us five billion per year off the base for health and higher education. The cuts imposed by the federal Liberal government will add a further $7 billion, as the member opposite has pointed out, over the next three years.
Madam Speaker, by the end of the 1994-95 fiscal year the federal government was contributing less than 1 percent of Canada's gross domestic product to health care in this country--less than 1 percent. That is a shame and a scandal when the federal government of a country cannot find even 1 percent of the GDP of that country to contribute to the medicare system.
I commend the members opposite for pointing out the problems in this system that have been caused by Conservative cuts and then magnified by Liberal cuts to health and higher education.
Secondly, Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member opposite that the five principles of medicare are absolutely crucial to the survival of medicare in this country. There is no question about that because it is only the Canada Health Act that allows the federal government to say to provinces, we must have at least some national standards.
As the members know, on both sides of this House, the provinces are sovereign in health care under our Constitution. The provinces have jurisdiction. The only jurisdiction the federal government gets in health care is when it spends money and then attaches conditions to the spending of those monies. The conditions that are attached under the Canada Health Act are the five pillars, so-called, to which the member referred.
When the federal government stopped spending its cash transfers, many constitutional experts--and I will be asking in Estimates the opinion of the Minister of Health's experts and the opinion of the Premier's experts--but many Legislative Counsel experts who look at constitutional law say that the day the last dollar comes from the federal Treasury in budgetary transfers is the day the federal government has no more say in the question of health care. I believe that that is the case.
In order to make good on their words, I would urge the members opposite to bring forward legislation which enshrines those five principles in Manitoba law, as the government of British Columbia has done, so that there can be no question in the minds of Manitobans of the commitment of their government to all of the principles of medicare. I can assure the members opposite that should they bring forward such legislation, it would have our very strong support to enshrine the principles of medicare in this province's legislation.
Secondly, Madam Speaker--and I would ask if you would give me two-minutes warning--I would refer also to what I believe are the honestly misguided ideas of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) opposite when he has said, both I believe himself and his predecessor Mr. Manness, that equalization can somehow make up for medicare costs.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Sale: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The members opposite have sometimes put forward the idea that increases in equalization will offset decreases in Established Programs Financing Act funding. Let me tell the members why that is not the case. Equalization is simply a program that supports the own-source revenues of the provinces against the so-called five province national standard, so that when our revenues fall or are weaker than the five province national standard, equalization comes in and boosts our own-source revenues. Equalization in no way makes up for losses in federal transfers. The mathematics of the two are separate and the impacts of the two are separate. Equalization, by its nature, cannot make up for federal cuts in the areas of federal transfers for health care, higher education and Canada Assistance Plan transfers.
So I would urge the members opposite to ask for some support to the view that I am putting forward from their own officials so that they are clear that the argument that says equalization will make up for health care cuts is simply not correct on the basis of the legislation that supports those two pieces of federal transfer legislation.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would refer the members opposite to the difficulties into which they are catapulting themselves when they talk about balanced budget legislation, because here in the cuts from the federal government are the perfect examples of the difficulty in an equalization recipient province with balanced budget legislation. We are unable at the beginning of any fiscal year to have any certainty about the level of our federal transfers. It is not at all uncommon, and the Minister of Finance, were he here, would confirm this, for half or three-quarters of the way through the year to find out that equalization has suddenly grown by $180 million or, conversely, that something else has fallen by $90 million. In neither case are those big enough to trigger the 5 percent threshold which has been placed into your draft legislation on balanced budget.
So when we look at the massive changes that are being proposed by the federal legislation C-76 and its impacts on provinces' ability to maintain health and higher education systems, we should take some considerable caution in suggesting we could bind ourselves into year-by-year balanced budgets when fully one-third of our revenues are very unpredictable at the beginning of any fiscal period.
So, Madam Speaker, in conclusion I move, seconded by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak),
That the resolution be amended by adding the words, "and; WHEREAS the provincial government has refused to recognize that reductions in federal transfer payments will have severe negative consequences for funding health." after the last WHEREAS clause; and
By adding the words "and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the provincial government to go on record as opposing legislation currently before the House of Commons which will curtail federal transfers even further; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the provincial government to consider enacting legislation to enshrine the Canada Health Act principles of accessibility, affordability, universality, public administration and portability in budgeting decisions and health policy in Manitoba." after the first Resolved clause.
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: The amendment is in order.
* (1730)
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the discussion which flows from the resolution moved today by my colleague the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura). I believe this is Resolution No. 1.
I am delighted that the honourable member for Morris is the member who has been allowed to move his resolution today for a couple of reasons. One of them is because this is my first opportunity publicly to welcome the honourable member for Morris to the Manitoba Legislature, which I do with great enthusiasm and expectation for his performance here and that of all the other new members in this Legislature, but maybe more importantly because of the extremely important subject matter that the honourable member for Morris chose.
To me it is a measure of the kind of representation the people of Morris are going to get when their new member of the Legislative Assembly sees the health of our population as being an important priority.
The honourable member for Morris deals in his resolution with the role of the federal government in our health care arrangements in Canada. The honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) who decided to grace us this afternoon with his contribution to this debate brings a different sort of approach to this discussion. It is an approach which some people still--very few mind you--find acceptable, that approach which allows you to use all those high-sounding words that demonstrate such sanctimony and such caring, but have absolutely no foundation in the real world.
Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Crescentwood has held himself out as some kind of a health consultant or health expert, the Messiah, as it were, of health care. It is nice if you can carry that kind of a reputation around, but I suggest that this Chamber and the light of day being directed toward some of the arguments he makes will soon debunk the myth that this member has any expertise whatever in the area of social programming in general or health care in particular.
Madam Speaker, any discussion of health care spending across this country without a corresponding discussion of the fiscal and economic realities of our country is worthless, and that is about what we got today from the honourable member for Crescentwood--a worthless contribution to this debate.
It is worthless for a number of reasons, but one of them is the total rewrite of the history of this country that was contained in his remarks this afternoon. That rewrite fails to recognize that governments in this country, which began with the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, began a cycle of spending and taxing that was not sustainable, and he wants us to go back to that cycle which is totally offside with the rest of the population.
New Democrats, some of them are coming out of this problem that they have. You will see evidence of it in places like Saskatchewan. You might even see strange sorts of evidence of it in places like Ontario and British Columbia. I am having a very, very hard time understanding how things work in Ontario and British Columbia. I have a better understanding of what is happening in Saskatchewan, and I have more of an appreciation for what is going on in Saskatchewan than I do in those two other provinces that I referred to.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): How about here, Jim?
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member for Kildonan, who seems to have been replaced today as the official spokesman for Health--but maybe that is because he is so busy putting me through the motions in the Estimates process and that is maybe understandable--wants me to talk about Manitoba, which is understandable, I would suggest--a reasonable suggestion to make. Well, let us do that then.
In Manitoba, we have reflected as a government over the past seven years the priority we place on health care by making it a No. 1 spending priority. Even in the light of those difficult things that the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) and the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) talked about, Manitoba has maintained its spending at very high levels, certainly very high levels as a proportion of total government spending because over a third of our provincial budget is spent on health. That is the highest percentage anywhere in the country.
When I am talking about failing to recognize the reality, I do not know if it is on purpose or if it is by accident or if some people are just so blinded and blinkered by their political philosophy that they just cannot see the light of day of any semblance of reason or understanding of the real issues that we face. Maybe that is what the problem is. We have seen it before. It is not new in this Chamber, but that must be the reason for the failure of the honourable member for Crescentwood and his colleagues to recognize the realities, or is it something else? I am not supposed to talk about that because it would not be parliamentary, and I have already had my knuckles rapped for that in the opening days of this session. I will not be doing that again.
Mr. Sale: Try to say something of substance on the issue.
* (1740)
Mr. McCrae: Now here we hear again from the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), who reminds us that we should be talking about matters of substance. Here he is. He just finished his 15 minutes in this place talking about some wonderland. Some former in-vogue thinkers in this country have now disappeared, except for the honourable member for Crescentwood, who makes me think that maybe Jurassic Park is not that much of a fairy tale, Madam Speaker.
The fact is that the honourable member for Crescentwood, in his strange kind of way of thinking, would have us believe that all of the problems that have developed in our country should be laid at the feet of one Brian Mulroney. Well, he can certainly get his share, there is no question about that, but to concentrate totally on Mr. Mulroney and to leave out Mr. Trudeau or, more lately, Mr. Chretien is not a correct way to discuss the situation in which we find ourselves today.
It was the Liberals in Ottawa who responded to the call of a national medicare system. I think there is general agreement that the foundations for that began in CCF Saskatchewan, and Tommy Douglas played a very important role. Tommy Douglas of course wanted to put across a system that paid doctors' bills and hospitals' bills and did not go much further than that. The honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) may even agree with this.
The fact is, the federal government, Liberal at the time, put together a medicare system for our whole country. There were the five fundamental principles under that. Then the Health Act came along and they embodied those principles in it. These are principles and words. Words, as Beauchesne will demonstrate, can have lots of meanings. So what is universality to the honourable member for Crescentwood is clearly something very different to the Prime Minister of Canada. I take it the honourable member would not disagree with that.
The biggest disservice the Liberal government in Canada did to the people of this country was the building up of expectations which were not something that could be delivered on a sustainable basis, not in the way it had been originally designed. So Pierre Trudeau and his government began the process of dismantling the levels of funding that we initially began to enjoy under our national health system. Then along came Brian Mulroney, and the same program was in effect for eight, nine years, whatever it was.
I think the honourable member for Crescentwood did not give this government and this caucus the credit that it is due, because part of the reason we may be here on this side of the House is the fact that we were indeed very critical of the Mulroney government in the years that the Mulroney government was in charge in our country. Yes, we have been critical of the Trudeau government and lately mildly critical of the Chretien Liberal government. To suggest that we are more critical of the Chretien Liberals than we were of the Mulroney Tories is just plain wrong. I have enough scars to--the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) always reminds me of my role in all of that, so I feel qualified to stand here and correct the honourable member for Crescentwood on that particular point.
You see, I agree with the resolution put forward by the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) because he wants the federal government to recognize and maintain its responsibilities for essential programming as stated in the Canada Health Act. That is what we should all want as Canadians because we have a national health care system. The problem with what started with Trudeau, carried on by Mulroney and carried on with a passion by the Chretien government, is is that we will not have a federal partner before very long. Therefore, who is the partner who is going to insist on certain standards, who is going to say you can do this and you cannot do that? If the federal government tries to do it there is going to be provincial jurisdictions just laughing at them because there will not be any money on the table.
So I think we have all agreed we have identified the problem. The solution is where we have some differences. The honourable member for Crescentwood says tax and spend some more. Tax some more money. The federal government, take more money from the rich people and from whoever else--[interjection] Well, the honourable member for Crescentwood says that he does not remember saying that, but he is not telling us where the federal government would get the money to beef up the contributions to health care.
I would agree with the honourable member that their recent budget showed no priorities whatever. I agree with that and I say it too. They could have done a better job leaving a little more money for health care but probably not a lot more money. That is where we are going to have a difference of opinion, because in order for us to have a health system, the kind the honourable member is talking about, the kind we use to have that they want to champion today which does not make any sense any more, even if that is the kind of system you want to have, it is going to take gobs and gobs of money that we do not have as a country or as a province. We do not even have the ability to raise it. Here is where the honourable member's theory that, you know, we are taxed to the limit is somehow not correct or a myth, that is where we are fundamentally at odds.
We have to find ways to rebuild a health system with the available dollars. I can be very critical of the feds too and will be because I see some misplaced priorities maybe in some of the so- called smaller areas, but when you put money on the table for a head start program or for programs for new moms to give the kids a better start in their lives, and then for no reason that you can justify, no justifiable excuse, you cut back on that sort of thing right across the board like everything else, that is not prioritization and that does not reflect a vision on the part of the federal government.
The federal government clearly does not know what it is doing, but I did not rise in my place to spend all my time battering the federal government. Goodness knows they have a terrible problem facing them, a problem created for them by years and years of taxing and spending and irresponsible governance of our country. I like to be a positive person and so I say it is not too late, you see, Madam Speaker. I think that because of the very careful budgeting of the former member for Morris and the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson), and all of the people on this side of the house for seven years; we have a fighting chance to preserve those best and essential parts of our health care system so that our kids will get what they deserve rather than what they were going to get and would have got if they would have voted differently on April 25.
We can only ask the federal government to show a better level of understanding of what makes Canada what it is, such a special country, but I fear we are losing that federal partner and will be on our own. I feel more sorry for people in other provinces who have not had governments who have seen this coming like the government here in Manitoba has. I do not accept the doom and the gloom from honourable members opposite. I say reject the amendment from the member from Crescentwood and support what my friend the honourable member from Morris has been saying and has reflected in his resolution. I thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand up and address this resolution, the amendment that has been brought forward. I was listening very carefully to what the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) was talking about at the end of his comments, and he said, you know we have the national five fundamental principles that are incorporated into the Canada Health Act. They talked about the importance of those five fundamental principles, and for seven years I too have been talking about that.
We should let the member for Crescentwood know that it was just but a couple of years ago where we actually introduced, attempted, the Liberal Party attempted to introduce a private members' bill that would have done just what the member for Crescentwood was talking about. Unfortunately, the political will, for a number of different reasons, from other parties inside the Chamber was not there to see the Liberal Party, I guess, bring forward a bill of this nature in any substantial way, but in the spirit of co-operation and compromise we then had proposed a resolution. That resolution saw the unanimous support of all members of this Chamber whether they were a Conservative, Liberal or a New Democrat.
* (1750)
I believe, ultimately, Madam Speaker, that the feeling of members in the Chamber, at least the Chamber of the past in which all three members from our current caucus participated, was that the five fundamental principles are something that all of us want to stand up for and ensure that we play a very important and significant role at ensuring that in fact they are going to be there for our future generations.
I take great exception to the New Democratic Party on this particular issue. The reason why I take great exception to it is because I believe that the New Democrats will put themselves on a pedestal. They will say all these wonderful things about health care. They will preach that only the New Democrats can ensure that the five fundamental principles are going to be there into the future. They will quite often talk about how medicare came into being, and they are very selective. The member made reference to intellectual flexibility, and I see a lot of intellectual flexibility that is used within the New Democratic caucus on this particular issue.
It was, in fact, as the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) has pointed out, a Liberal administration that brought the Canada Health Act into being and adopted the five fundamental principles. Yes, it was first brought in in the Province of Saskatchewan. For the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), you know, I believe it was in 1919 or in around that time period in which a resolution was passed with the Liberal Party talking about the importance and the need to have universal health care coverage throughout the country. No political party owns the issue of health care. In fact, Madam Speaker, if you take a look at what is happening across Canada in all provinces, you will see that there are significant cutbacks in health care expenditures. In Ontario, thousands of health care workers were laid off. In Saskatchewan, hospitals have been closed, and justifiably. The New Democratic Party Leader will say, well, it is a conversion. In the cases where it is conversion, we are glad to see that. That is what health care should be about, and this is the sort of discussion and dialogue that we should be entering into in debates inside the Chamber.
But not try to say: Well, geez, because you are not a part of the New Democratic Party, your feelings towards health care cannot be as strong as mine. After all, I am a New Democrat.
It is not a question, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae)--and I do not want to impute motives on behalf of the Minister of Health--but the Minister of Health could be just as caring for health care as the critic, or as the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). Really and truly, both of them could have the same sorts of feelings towards the importance of those five fundamental health cares.
Madam Speaker, I do not believe that any member of this Chamber should try to impute motives or try to say that their position--that they are going to be stronger, and I guess at times I might myself be accused of trying to monopolize this particular issue--
Some Honourable Members; Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Lamoureux: --because even I at times have said that inside this Chamber I like to believe that no one is a stronger advocate for health care, Madam Speaker. Having said that, I really do believe that, at the very least, I am second to no one inside this Chamber in wanting to ensure that those five fundamental principles are going to be around. I think what I would like to see--and now one of my responsibilities is to enter into more dialogue and debate on health care on behalf of the Liberal Party--is to look at health care reform in better ways in which we can spend what monies that are currently being allocated. I think that there is great room for improvement.
The New Democrats pointed out a number of ideas; the Liberals had a number of ideas; and even the Conservatives had some ideas. One can question in terms of the implementation of those ideas, but, Madam Speaker, whether it is private versus public labs in which at least both opposition parties have talked about, whether it is the nurse practitioners, the roles in which--and the Leader talks about Connie Curran. That was the one issue. Generally, I do not call in to Peter Warren, but I called in to Peter Warren, the first time in seven years, when he invited all candidates to call in, and I take great exception. The New Democratic Party knows that the Liberal Party never supported Connie Curran. I have never supported Connie Curran. They take a vote on a particular issue in which Connie Curran was a part of, and then try to say, well, because the NDP were behaving here in a very irresponsible fashion, that in fact they supported Connie Curran. Well, Madam Speaker, I never supported Connie Curran.
Madam Speaker, that is the reason why. I felt it was important that the constituents that I represent know that in fact when it comes to ensuring that, there is--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), I would like to gently suggest, is perhaps enticing participation from other members in the Chamber, and I would suggest that he be a little more relevant and stick to debate relevant to the resolution.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Speaker. At times, I guess I do tend to entice individuals to participate, and I guess it comes in part because you listen to everyone speak and some things are more hard to digest than others and you feel somewhat obligated to respond to it. That is the reason why at times I might digress. I appreciate the tolerance of the Chamber when I do just that.
When we talk about the financing of health care, I think it is important that, yes, we acknowledge that there is a need for additional financing of health care, but, given the economic times in which this government day after day itself stands up and talks about, day after day we see other provinces with other political stripes talk about--whether it is Premier Bob, which might not be Premier Bob in a few days, possibly, to whomever. I am enticing again, Madam Speaker. My apologies.
Madam Speaker, I do believe that what we do need to do is that we have to look at how we really can spend those health care dollars because they are scarce. Even though it is a significant percentage of our overall budget, yes, we do need to ensure what dollars are being spent in the best way possible. The way in which we do that, I would suggest, is that we have to sit down in co-operation, whether it is intergovernmental co-operation or it is co-operation with the different individuals that rely on or provide in our health care system. This is very, very important because if you do not have that sense of co-operation, it is extremely difficult to see any form of health care changes to take place without undue bumps in the road, which could cause a great deal of hardship. Ultimately, that is the reason why I believe it is important to have things such as the health care committees. That is the reason why I believe it is important that we have dialogue with our members of Parliament or our national government.
I too am concerned, as all members, in terms of the whole question of EPF and EPF funding. I appreciate the comments with respect to the equalization payments that the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has put forward, but I too, like other members of this Chamber, am quite prepared to sit down and have dialogue. We are going to have the opportunity--[interjection] I did not mean sit down to have a vote. I still have a lot more that I would like to be able to say on this resolution, you know. My constituents send very strong messages to me, and one of those strong messages is whenever you get the opportunity to talk about health care you should--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is next before the House, the honourable member for Inkster will have four minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).