Debates of Nov. 19th, 1998

Supply

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to make one thing clear. The members of the Bloc Quebecois are fond of numbers games. They keep referring to cuts in the amount of $7 billion. I think that the member who spoke before me said these cuts were made in the Province of Quebec. I will try to settle this matter once and for all.

I have here the actual figures. In 1993-94, Quebec received $7.9 billion in cash and tax points, as compared to $6.8 billion today, a mere $1.3 billion difference. Often, when this issue is raised, the federal government is blamed; the next level of government is always to blame when the provinces are forced to cut back in their priorities.

The decision to cut back is made by the provinces. They are free to use the money that comes back to them as they please, depending on their priorities.

When six provinces have achieved balanced budgets, when one spends more than another, on a per capita basis, in the area of health care, and another one decides to spend more on public servants and administration, I think these are priorities, and the priority for the Province of Quebec—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Lotbinière.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague across the floor, with his figures and statistics, I recognize a true Liberal, with no compassion toward our sick, our unemployed and our young people.

We did not need to hear this sad story of Liberal accomplishments, because we are familiar with the outcome. Health care in Quebec and throughout the country is in total chaos.

Now there is a surplus. It is clear: $10.4 billion. Does the hon. member agree that the government should put at least $2 billion in health care, as we are asking today? The government does have money. Why does it not want to pay?

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we can talk about choices because we have a balanced budget. In the past we did not, so we could not talk about such things.

I believe the hon. member is right. If there is a priority—

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The reason you have $11 billion is because you have dipped into the employment insurance fund.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Why don't you listen to the reply?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Shame.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I agree with the hon. member that the priority for Canadians is to reinvest in health, and we are going to do so.

But there are other priorities. As the hon. member is aware, since he sits on the finance committee, education is another priority. It must be pointed out too that the priorities are always a provincial responsibility.

I would like to ask him how it happened that the Quebec premier cut $3 billion from programs, and then suddenly, on the eve of the election, he announces an investment of $2.1 billion.

When I speak of priorities, how can it be that the premier of Quebec is closing five hospitals and choosing to invest $160 million to extend the metro to Laval? It is because these are provincial priorities; it is not always the federal government's fault.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak to the motion brought forward by the Bloc, asking the federal government to reinvest in our health care system after putting several provinces in dire financial straits.

Some of those provinces are not allies of the government. I am thinking about Quebec and Ontario, among others. The federal government is playing politics with our health care system to try to destabilize certain political figures that it does not particularly care for.

What happened? The member who just spoke referred to a lot of figures. If we look at the Fiscal Monitor , published by the Department of Finance, we can see clearly that transfers to the provinces went from more or less $18 billion to today's cash floor of $12.5 billion.

They are telling us that we should be glad since they had planned on reducing it to $11 billion, but they stopped at $12.5 billion. The cash floor is slightly higher than was planned. Today, we should all rise and applaud them for saving us this additional cut that would have reduced the Canada social transfer by another $1.5 billion. Now we get to—

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

The Quebec premier did the same thing.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one member asked us to listen a few moments ago, and I would now ask him to return the favour and to please listen.

I will move right now to another part of my speech to please him. We will soon have a debate on reinvestment. This is one of the goals the federal government will pursue now that it has a surplus. After slashing transfers to the provinces and getting more money from the unemployed, the workers and the employers who pay EI premiums but find it harder now to qualify for benefits, the federal government has racked up an accumulated surplus of $10.4 billion in the first six months of this fiscal year.

It is a lot of money. And now, they are really excited at the prospect of spending it as they see fit. As the health minister said yesterday and as the Prime Minister has said before, health will now become one of their priorities, all of a sudden. It was not a priority when they were making cuts. Health was not one of their priorities at that time or they would not have made the cuts they made.

I find it strange to see them taking part in today's debate. It seems that the former health minister is now suddenly wide awake. When she was in cabinet, not once did she speak against the government. We have to wonder if she even tried to step in to protect the health of Canadians, as her department kept getting slashed. As far as transfers to the provinces are concerned, she never said a word and now she wakes up and in good conscience says “We are addressing health concerns”.

How will they go about it now? They want more visibility. We can see how frustrated they feel when they talk about tax point transfers. What they are not saying is that they are terribly sorry to have granted tax points to the provinces, because of the visibility they could have gained from them.

They will start to reinvest in health, but you can be sure that there will be strings attached. Given how obsessed they are with visibility, you can be sure that this will be one of the main criteria used to assess programs. Even before assessing the real needs, they will try to determine how the money they spend can increase their visibility. That is what we can expect.

Yet, they never asked for visibility when they were making cuts. When an hon. member talked about five hospitals being closed, we could have said “Here are the hospitals being closed thanks to the federal government”. But funny how at that time they did not ask for their contribution to be acknowledged.

We hear a lot about reinvesting in equipment. Medicine and technologies evolve quickly. I am sure they look forward to investing in equipment and gaining some visibility by sticking the maple leaf on it.

The first piece of equipment the federal government should sponsor is hospital scalpels engraved with “Best wishes from the federal government” to remind people of the cuts it has made over the last few years and the problems it has created for several provinces.

Let us have a look at what has happened in the area of health care across the country. Maclean's magazine carried an analysis accurately describing the situation in each province: a high percentage of real cuts in Quebec as well as in Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Only the territories found themselves in a better position than before with regard to transfer payments. Two provinces, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, were less affected.

I will not start debating at this point what the federal government has been doing behind the scene to compensate the maritime provinces for these cuts. We could mention the GST compensation scheme under which it gave them $1 billion to soften the impact.

We were, and still are every day, in a situation where the government opposite is withdrawing. Initially several health care programs were jointly funded by both levels of government; it was a 50:50 partnership.

Today the federal government barely pays for a quarter of some health programs and in certain provinces it is even less than that. It has substantially reduced its share. There is a reason why, when all the provinces met, they unanimously urged the federal government to return the money it had cut to all the provinces because this government believes some provinces are better than others; there are some provincial governments it likes and others it does not.

But it made no distinction in this case. All the provincial governments said that it was enough, that the government had gone too far. This government does not even have the excuse it used these last years when it said that the nation's finances forced it to make such cuts. It has always been hard for the government to admit it, but when it did reluctantly, it used the nation's finances as an excuse.

We now have a $10.4 billion surplus just for the first six months of this year. That surplus will grow in the coming months. Despite the economic problems experienced in recent months at the international level, we now know their impact on Canada has been a lot less severe than expected and that the government's fiscal revenues are substantially the same.

From Quebec's point of view, what does that mean? While we, in Quebec, continue to fight to eliminate the deficit, make the last efforts to get there, find creative ways of finishing the tough job started by Quebeckers, we are sending half of our tax revenues to the federal government that has a surplus of some $2 billion for the first six months. And we cannot take that money to reinvest it according to our priorities because the federal government has decided to define them for us.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Mercier. Therefore, I have about one minute left.

What happened in the area of education is a perfect example. We have not talked about the cuts made by the Liberals in education. It was the same as with health care. They took the money from the surplus to set up a foundation that would offer scholarships and give the federal government a high profile in the field of education.

They are now preparing to do the same thing to us in the field of health. After making us suffer considerably, they want to reinvest, with only one thing in mind: visibility.

I am pleased to see that all the parties in opposition will be supporting this motion, that all provinces are calling for it, and that this government is feeling increasingly isolated with its talk of the present situation not being so bad, not its fault, that the tax points must not be forgotten, and so on.

They are getting pretty isolated and soon will have to come up with an answer for the provincial premiers. They will also have to vote—and I am anxious to see how they act when it comes to voting on this motion—in favour of putting the money back where the key priority lies at the present time, in health.

It cannot be done any old way. It must be included in the transfers to the provinces so they can inject money into sectors currently considered priorities, into new services and into areas of need created by the aging of the population. The provincial governments, which already administer health care, are in the best position to define the most pressing needs.

I warn them about all their juggling of figures, files and individuals in this matter. Health is not their main priority. There should be no mistake. Their main priority is visibility, not health. If it were, we would not be in this situation today of having a $10 billion surplus, when the government savagely cut transfers to the provinces. These cuts hurt.

At the outset, I said that it was for political purposes. I suspect they will reinvest in the coming year, but after the Quebec and Ontario elections. These are two governments they do not particularly like, which make lots of demands on and are a little too critical of federal Liberals. They will try to help their provincial Liberal friends in Quebec and Ontario by destabilizing the health system, and they will wait and see what happens. Then, if this does not work, they will see what they can do about it afterwards.

It is in this spirit that I along with all my colleagues from all the opposition parties will support this motion before us today.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his remarks, the member asked a question. He was wondering why the federal government had put a $12.5 billion cap on transfer payments.

I want to remind the hon. member that, when we first made the option, we took note of a priority identified by Canadians and we increased payments for health by $1.5 billion, as the member just said. We raised them from $11 billion to $12.5 billion. Why $12.5 billion? Because the national council on health has met this past year, and it has consulted all those affected by the legislation and the health care networks. It has recommended that we invest $12.5 billion. We listened, and now the member is criticizing us for putting back in funds we had cut. In our province, the Premier of Quebec also cut back funding for health care by $3 billion, in fact $3.5 billion.

To address the member's questions, the Premier of Quebec's motives may or may not have been political, but the fact remains that, last week, he announced that he too was going to invest an additional $2.1 billion.

I would like to know whether this is new money or if he is not following our lead. Why is the member criticizing us but not his own premier?

I have another question for him. Often, the suggestion is made that all problems in health care are due to insufficient funding. When I look at Quebec, which spends 40% more than Ontario on health care, while its population is 60% of that of Ontario, I wonder if something could not be done about the administration, if service delivery could not be refined.

Does the member agree with the premier, who stated during the debate on Tuesday that he had made every effort and, as a result, waiting lines had been shortened and health care services were being delivered rapidly. If contributions to provinces were restored, does the member agree that the funds should go to health service delivery?

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, this almost sounded like a speech. I will have a hard time commenting on all the issues raised.

I will quote from a document that is not from the Bloc Quebecois, but from the Library of Parliament: “During the 80s and 90s, the federal government, in its effort to reduce the deficit, limited on several occasions the growth of transfers made under two programs, namely the Canada Assistance Plan and the cost sharing programs. This adversely affected the provinces' public finances and their ability to financially maintain their health insurance plans and social programs”.

A document from the Library of Parliament states that this government adversely affected the provinces' ability to maintain their health insurance plans. This study was released in July 1997.

I will now quote some figures, which I have here with me. For the coming year, the Quebec government will spend $13 billion on health and social programs. This is the same amount as in 1996-97.

The amount of money allocated to health and social programs by the Quebec government remains at a very stable level. It is true that, because of growth, this means that, in real terms, some cuts were made. The actions taken by the federal government during its last mandate resulted in a $7 billion shortfall for the Quebec government.

When the member says that the Quebec government made cuts totalling $3 billion or $4 billion, he should congratulate it for having managed to somehow absorb half of the cuts, instead of passing them on to someone else. The member should be pleased and he should congratulate the Quebec government for having successfully met that challenge, in spite of this blow—I was going to use some unparliamentary language—from the federal government.

Let me elaborate on these figures and give them a regional dimension. Back home, in the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region, federal cuts in health amount to $25 million annually. This is the equivalent of the budget of the general hospitals in Val-d'Or, Amos and Rouyn-Noranda, and even more. After making cuts of $25 million in my region, the federal government is now claiming that health is one of its major concerns. Nobody believes them, and it is certainly not the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges who will make people change their minds about that.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, and I hope many Quebecers are listening.

To start I will say this: I am quite sure that if Jean Charest were still leader of the Progressive Conservative Party he would support this motion, he would approve of it. This motion has the support of every opposition party. It came about as a result of an array of pressures, not all political.

I want to mention that some of our Liberal colleagues were probably been invited to meet the Health Action Lobby, or HEAL, which was here this week. These 28 national health and consumer organizations are urging the government to raise the floor for the Canadian transfers to $15 billion. This is what they are asking.

What are their demands based on? Not on what members from the Bloc or other opposition parties have to say. They are based on polls taken across Canada showing that Canadians' trust in the health care system is deteriorating. It dropped from 61% in 1991 to 29% in February 1998. My colleague for Vaudreuil—Soulanges must have seen this excellent information kit.

Also the Bloc wanted to know what people were thinking because here we are surrounded by numbers and we see what is going on, but people do not always get to see the real picture. During the break we visited individuals, groups and business people in our ridings. We met many organizations. Our consultations led us to the conclusion that the absolute top priority for everybody was to give the money back to the provinces.

This week the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which is made up of 91,000 small businesses, appeared before the finance committee. And what did it say?

I would like to quote part of what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had to say. “Although members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business support more spending control, especially under relatively favourable economic conditions, it is important to mention that entrepreneurs are in favour of higher health and education transfers to the provinces”.

“This could require reallocation of existing funding instead of an increase in total public expenditures”. However, they want to ensure that basic health and education services will be maintained and to “avoid costly new programs being set up, like the pharmacare program the government wants to create despite our members' opposition to it”.

What are the small businesses saying through their representative? The money should be given back to the provinces. The president, Mrs. Swift, even said that the government should stop playing the sort of games it played with the millennium scholarship fund. That is what she said and I could quote the blues.

In my beautiful riding of Mercier that includes the provincial counties of Bourget, Pointe-aux-Trembles and Lafontaine, I also consulted with various groups and businesspeople. Their first priority is also the transfers to the provinces.

These people are concerned about health, but they are also concerned about education, and some of them about welfare. Therefore, the motion we have put forward today is not just a whim. It did not come about just because members of the four opposition parties had lunch together. It came about because were are faced with an intolerable situation in this country.

What is so intolerable? We have a government that brags about its management, accumulates surpluses and refuses to return to the provinces the money it owes them for health care, education and welfare. Moreover, we learned last week that the budget surplus for the first six months of this year was $10.4 billion, and we can make the conservative assumption that it will reach $15 billion for the year.

What is intolerable is that people see a reduction in services. That is what the HEAL survey reveals. What do we see? Our health, education and welfare systems are under extreme pressure. Hospital and local community service centre employees, teachers and public servants are exhausted. People are personally and deeply affected by these drastic cuts.

What is the federal government doing about these pressures? Is it rushing to share part of its surpluses with Quebec and the other provinces? No. It is stubbornly resisting all the pressure to reduce employment insurance premiums, which are nothing but highway robbery. They should be called special contributions to reduce the deficit for those people making $39,000 or less and for businesses that pay EI premiums. It is, quite simply, highway robbery.

What is the government doing? Is it sharing with the provinces part of its surpluses to compensate people for the pain, suffering and hardship imposed upon them? No. It just keeps saying no. It is amazing.

It is true that this government often likes to quote the OECD. Our problem is that the OECD has not done a review of social spending in all countries recently.

The last one I saw—and I like to keep up to date—dates back to 1994. At that time, Canada ranked in the bottom third of countries in terms of social spending. If the numbers were to be reviewed, Canada certainly would not move up to another third, but would no doubt move down in the bottom third.

When social spending is so drastically cut, it means that people suffer. It means that it costs people their health.

The Bloc Quebecois has made one proposal: that the federal government allocate at least $1 billion more for health expenditures. What this motion asks is what is necessary, according to the consensus reached by the premiers in Saskatoon, to achieve at least that billion. It is the absolute minimum. The Latin phrase is minimum minimorum. It is the absolute minimum to give the people a break, a breather.

How can this government seriously talk about federalism, when it made a policy in its own interest, and I would add, its party's interest? This policy has a very serious impact on many governments and especially on the people. I hope we will strongly support this motion, which is a cry from the people, and that some members of the governing party will vote with us.

This is not asking for much. In fact, it is asking for very little, but that would be sufficient to let give the people a break.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has said that the top priority for Canadians was reinvestment in transfers to the provinces. I believe I should correct her by saying that the top priority for Canadians is reinvestment in health services.

She also asked why we in the federal government are not investing in health services, now that there is a balanced budget, or why we are not giving more to the provinces. I would like to point out to her what has already been done. I would like to remind her that the first time we had the opportunity to do so, in 1998, we did indeed invest an additional $1.5 billion in health services, via transfers to the provinces.

In 1996 as well, we invested $65 million, very little, but let us not forget that was in 1996.

In 1997, we invested $800 million in the Canadian Foundation for Innovation,; $150 million in the health services adjustment fund, $100,000 in community action programs for child nutrition; $47 million for the networks of centres of excellence.

In 1998, we invested $7 billion for the CHST cash floors; $375 million for student and caregiver tax credits; $211 million for HIV research; $200 million for deductions of workers' health insurance premiums; I could go on.

If we are to invest again in services and transfers to the provinces, does she commit to this money being spent on education or health as planned?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are three questions within my colleague's question, and I shall try to answer all three.

The first was a statement, an attempt to minimize the cuts by saying that $1.5 billion had been restored. What must be kept in mind is that the level of transfers was $18 billion, reduced to $11 billion in four years. That represents $ 7 billion in cuts.

In this regard, what did they do? They gave $1 billion back, and they would like us to be grateful. Come on! People are not stupid. They simply reduced their cutting by $1.5 billion.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Your premier does the same thing.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member recently asked my colleague to listen to the answer. I would ask him to do the same. This is my first answer.

I would also like to give him my second answer: I am sure that people want the provinces to be responsible for health care. We heard people everywhere telling us: “The federal government must give back to the provinces the money it took from them”. Because when you attack basic services, you attack something that lies at the heart of people's concerns: their health.

I could also say that, in the human resources development department, several surveys have shown that the provinces were always in the best position to provide social programs. This makes sense because people know what is best for them.

The third element of his question had to do with the Canada social transfer. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and I remember the time when we went from the old system to the new system. The government gave us a lump sum, saying “We are giving this to you as a lump sum so you can spend it as you see fit”. What probably happened is that the first referendum was coming.

So, the lump sum was the principle and the contract, and since you have starved the provinces, there can be no going back on what you said at that time. I would add that Quebec lost something in this, because it used to get 34% in welfare transfers. It was not because Quebec was rich; it was because there was a lot of poverty in the province.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting to note the level of frustration that exists on the opposite benches. I think their frustration stems largely from the fact that despite all their rhetoric and all their accusations, the government remains the most popular government since before the war, interestingly enough, in the entire country.

We have to ask ourselves why. When we look at a motion by the Bloc, fundamentally a provincial party, fundamentally a party with only provincial and regional interests, we see that they are saying we should simply give more money. When the Reform Party stands every day in question period the lament is to give more money. We come to expect it from the New Democrats. We know they are spendthrifts. We have had some experience, not out west but certainly in Ontario, with New Democratic policy. Their lament is simply to give more money. The Progressive Conservatives left office somewhat unceremoniously in 1993, leaving Canadian people with an overdraft of $42 billion.

We take credit, I suppose as a government, but I think more importantly as a people.

[An hon. member]

Why don't you take the blame instead?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

We will take the blame, as the member opposite would like. He would like to blame us for eliminating the $42 billion deficit. We are guilty. We will take that blame, absolutely.

We wonder what is it we have to do to get the message through. It is really quite remarkable. This might as well be an all party opposition resolution. I suspect from comments made that all parties opposite will vote for it.

In the middle of a budget year the motion is calling—and Canadians know we cannot do it—for the government to knee-jerk react because of provincial pressures and spend another $2 billion. Governing is about making choices and they are not always easy choices. I am sure the Bloc will never know that because in reality I do not think the Bloc would govern anywhere. As I said it is a provincial party.

This is a bit like a son or daughter leaving home but wanting to come back to get some money every once in a while. They want an allowance. “Please set us free, let us go, but give us some money just in case”. It is an amazing argument.

Double standards exist around here. I see members of the provincial Bloc Party joining all the parliamentary associations and travelling around the world at taxpayers expense, the same taxpayers whom they would spurn, whom they would like to leave. They are not ashamed to spend taxpayers money in the interim. It is remarkable to see.

I spent eight years in the Ontario legislature both in government and in opposition. Prior to that I spent 10 years on a municipal and regional council. During that time I came to realize that municipalities run for election against the provinces. They look to the provinces to blame for all their problems because far be it from having to admit to their taxpayer, the ratepayer, the homeowner, the resident, that the problems are created locally. They say they are created provincially. All the provinces, perhaps most notably in this instance Quebec, tend to run and play against the federal government, those big, bad people in Ottawa.

I have talked to the average person on the street. I have been to Quebec City and had trouble finding a separatist. It was amazing. The people who depend on the economy for their living are not separatists. Members should talk to the cab drivers, the waiters and waitresses, people in the hotel business, and people on the street. I found a few of them in the legislature. I am sure Bloc members could introduce me to some. I have no doubt. It was quite amazing to see the provincial parochial interest.

I find it absolutely astounding to have a member of the Bloc stand in her place and say that the government's health care policies are based on partisan interest. What nonsense. The Canadian public knows. It is rather interesting that every year we are voted by the United Nations as the greatest country in the world to live.

[An hon. member]

For five years.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

“For five years” my colleague says. In a recent speech I said Canada had been voted as the greatest country in the world in which to live unless you live here.

It is interesting to listen to the constant moaning and bickering from the opposition. I understand opposition. I was in opposition for five years. I do not expect opposition parties to congratulate the government, but I would expect someone with a provincial bias, whose sole purpose in life is to promote provincial autonomy, provincial authority and provincial government, at least to acknowledge that our health care system is with all its warts and bumps the finest health care system in the world. No one denies that.

The Reform Party would take us down the road of the American health care system. We have Dr. Death sitting over there, the critic who would dismantle the entire Canadian health care system. Yet the Reform Party accuses us of running a health care system based on partisan issues.

Partisanship quite clearly shows when members sit around over there in their little worlds and try to come up with a way they could put forward a nasty little resolution to call on the government to do this or do that or to spend this or spend that. It is like talk radio. Talk radio is very much like opposition. You can say anything you want with impunity. You can demand this and demand that with impunity and without any sense of responsibility.

I was particularly interested in watching the debate the other night on the Quebec election to hear Mr. Bouchard make an amazing comment that no one seemed to pick up on. To paraphrase, he said that Quebec was in better shape economically than it had been in 25 years.

It sounds like a pretty good argument for staying in Canada. It sounds like maybe, just maybe, Quebecers know that the province of Quebec did not succeed in attaining, if what Mr. Bouchard said is true, the lofty position of being in the best economic shape in the last 25 years without being part of the greatest federation of the world, without being part of a country that is recognized all around the world as the greatest country in the world in which to live.

Why could the Bloc not acknowledge that a partnership with the province of Ontario, the largest trading partner the province of Quebec enjoys and vice versa, may work reasonably well? But, no, they want to be like the little spoiled brat who says to mom and dad “I am leaving home. I am going to my own place but I will be back once a month or once a week or whatever for a little allowance. I want you to spend more money”. This kind of double standard is truly remarkable.

I read the polls. I understand what is happening in Quebec. It would be delightful if Quebecers would realize in the upcoming provincial election that indeed the number one priority is health care and not sovereignty; indeed the number one priority is forging a strong economic union and partnership with their cousins, brothers and sisters right across this great land and not sovereignty; and indeed this federation, this family called Canada, seems to be working.

Can we improve it? Of course we can. The prime minister, the health minister and the finance minister have already said that this—

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Your dollar.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

What does the hon. member mean by “your dollar?” It seems to me that the member opposite is saying that our dollar is down. That is an interesting reaction.

What are they spending? When members of the Bloc Quebecois cash their paycheques at the expense of the federal taxpayer, what do they get paid in? They get paid in Canadian dollars. I do not think they begrudge the Canadian dollar. Regardless of what it might be worth in the sunny south where many members opposite may like to holiday, the fact is that a buck is a buck is a buck here at home. In spite of the fact that the Canadian dollar is down extremely low, it is good for exports and it is good for tourism. It has encouraged Canadians to holiday in Canada. What a unique experience. They will get to know this country.

There are side benefits to that problem. I find it most telling that a member of the Bloc would point over here and say “your dollar”. Until the hon. member is notified otherwise it is our dollar. It is his dollar and it is our dollar. I suspect when he goes to the store he will be spending his dollar, which is my dollar, which is the taxpayers dollar. I ask the member not to give me this nonsense and this parochial separatist mentality that again simply says the federal government whom they hate should give them more. It is Oliver going for more soup. “May we please have more?” It is hypocrisy and it is truly amazing to watch.

Recently the province of Ontario has undergone some interesting situations. On television any night of the week we see ads about our health care system, a little boy with a boo boo on his knee trying to rip off a band-aid. The mother says “If you rip it off quick it will not hurt”. The message there is that if Mike Harris cuts health care quickly it will not hurt.

For the first time in my 30 years living in Mississauga, a week or so ago I experienced the emergency room at Mississauga General Hospital turning away ambulances.