June 6, 2004

Dear Attorney General of Canada:

It is with great displeasure that I write to you today to complain and ask
for a public inquiry into why our Senators would seek to disband our
publicly delivered health care system.  The Senator's actions should be
ethically questioned and they should be reprimanded for taking such
actions  on their own.

The actions of the Senators who, while not elected by the people,
represent  the people and are supposed to act in the best interest of Canadians, have
taken a historical step to interfere in the Chaouilli court case starting  today..

The reply message from the Senators indicate they are doing this in the
best  interest  of saving our publicly delivered system.  Well Hon. Cotler, I suggest to
you  the opposite.  Striking down the Canada Health Act and the Quebec
Insurance  Act would strike down all the public health insurance's in all Provinces
and  opening the door for a large influx of for-profit delivery of health care.

The best way to protect our public system is to implement the Romanow
recommendations and ensure secure stable funding with an immediate
increase  to the provinces of at least 25%.  We also believe in accountability by
the  provinces that the money is going to health care.

We do not want a US style health care.  41 Million Americans are without
any  health insurance whatsoever, millions more have insufficient health care
coverage.  And 50 % of the US bankruptcies are due to health care costs.
The 2001 US Census Bureau reported that an additional 1.5 Million
Americans  lost their health insurance.  We have a unique system in this Country
where  everyone is covered for health care regardless of how much you are worth.
It protects both the rich and the poor and the rest of us in-between.    A
recent article from the New England Journal of Medicine, which I am
attaching (again), identifies the higher cost of health care
Administration  than the  much lower cost in Canada.   We cannot afford private health care in the
country.  The article goes on to say that the US should adopt the publicly
delivered health care in Canada.  Hon. Cotler, this is saying something
and  we need our politicians to listen, and not interfere against our wishes
and  better judgement.

These senators, many from Nova Scotia, are not speaking on behalf of our
publicly delivered and funded health care system, in fact, their actions
suggest that the case should overturn the Insurance Act of Quebec as well
as  the Canada Health Act which would make way for a private health care
delivery.

This is completely unacceptable of any government representative of the
people.  I have been informed that Senator Kirby himself is on the Board
of  Directors for Extendicare a for-profit health management company.  Sen.
Kirby has no business in the health of Canadians other than to ensure our
publicly delivered health care system remains just that, A PUBLICLY
DELIVERED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

I implore you Hon. Attorney General of Canada  that you must act now on
behalf of Canadians and investigate the actions of these Senators and put
a  stop to what can only be terrible for all Canadians now and for future
generations.  A public inquiry/investigation is necessary to protect
Canadians and I am one of those Canadians that feel the need for
protection.  We urge you to please take a stand.

Sincerely yours,

Debbie L. Kelly, Chairperson
Nova Scotia Citizens' Health Care Network
(902) 455-9164
cc; Network organizations
      MLA's, MPs and Senators

----- Original Message -----
From: "McCreery, Christopher: SEN" <MCCREC@SEN.PARL.GC.CA>
To: <healthnetwork@hfx.eastlink.ca>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 11:24 AM
Subject: Letter from Senator Kirby


Dear  Ms. Kelly:

Many thanks for your e-mail of 25 April, regarding your concerns about the
Chaoulli case currently before the Supreme Court of Canada. I suspect that
your letter is based on the deliberate misrepresentation of our position,
which Michael McBain of the Canadian Health Coalition continues to make,
as  he has for the past couple of years.

The intervention of myself and nine other members of the Senate Committee
on  Social Affairs, Science and Technology is motivated by our desire to
preserve publicly funded health care in Canada. All of the Senators
intervening in the case - like the vast majority of Canadians - strongly
support the single payer publicly funded model for the delivery of health
care services. Our report on health care specifically examined the issue
of  public verses private funding and explicitly came down on the side of
maintaining our publicly funded system.

The Appellants in this case are claiming that Quebec laws prohibiting
private insurance violate Charter rights to security of the person when
waiting lists for medically necessary services in the public system are so
long as to cause harm to those who require these services.  The Appellants
want the Supreme Court to allow Canadians to purchase these services
privately in Canada.

In our submissions we support the position that a violation of Charter
rights occurs when excessive waiting times lead to a deterioration of a
patient's health. However, we also argue that the solution to this dilemma
is not to allow privately funded health care to fill the void in the
public  system, but instead to strengthen the public system to ensure that it
meets  the health needs of Canadians.

As the Senate Committee said in its report on health care, "[G]overnments
can no longer have it both ways - they cannot fail to provide timely
access  to medically necessary care in the publicly funded health care system and,
at the same time, prevent Canadians from acquiring those services through
private means. [*] [The Committee] passionately hopes that it will not be
necessary for [*] a parallel system of private delivery, financed by
private  insurance, to emerge [*].  The Committee has pointed to these potential
consequences of not implementing the health care guarantee only because it
categorically rejects the status quo: Canadians in need of medically
necessary services must be given timely access to them." To make this
public  system effective, governments must ensure timely access to care.

Far from trying to undermine public health care, our Supreme Court
intervention is meant to save it.  We felt that we could not stand by
while  our public system is persistently eroded, through under-funding and
mismanagement, to the point that Canadians no longer have access to health
services when they need them.

It is our belief that a Health Care Guarantee, which would ensure timely
access to care, is the only way to save Medicare from those who want to
privatize it.  Under this Guarantee, if an individual does not receive
care  in accordance with evidence-based deadlines, the provincial government
would  pay for treatment in another jurisdiction, possibly in another province or
the United States.

If we do not find a way to better support and manage our publicly funded
health care system - through remedies such as a Health Care Guarantee and
a  National Health Care Premium - we are convinced that the Courts will rule
that the existing system is unconstitutional because it violates the
section  7 rights of Canadians. Quite frankly, the status-quo is not acceptable,
and  attempting to maintain it is the most surefire way to destroy our publicly
funded system. Our Senate Report concluded that doing nothing to guarantee
that Canadians do not suffer excessive waiting times, which is the
alternative advocated by many on the political left, is likely to lead the
Supreme Court to rule that Canadians whose section 7 rights are infringed
by  excessive waiting times for health service are entitled to be able to buy
the service in Canada.

If the Supreme Court finds in favour of the Appellants using private
resources, we argue in our submission, that the Court should suspend its
ruling to allow the government an appropriate period of time (for example,
three years) to consider and implement initiatives to ensure that timely
access to care is available.  If governments guarantee timely access, the
prohibitions on private health care will no longer be unconstitutional,
since no one's section 7 rights will be violated.

Because the Senate Committee is passionately opposed to a parallel system
of  health care delivery financed by private insurance, it recommended the
Care  Guarantee as its preferred remedy for Canadians whose section 7 rights
would  otherwise be infringed.  That is why it is so troubling when people who
claim to be passionate defenders of publicly funded health care, like the
Canadian Health Coalition, continue to advocate a strategy that is likely
to  lead to the destruction of Canada's most cherished social program.

I trust that I have explained our position and that you realize that we
too  are ardent supporters of Canada's single payer, publicly funded health
care  system.

Kind regards,



Michael Kirby