Debates of May 2nd, 1995

Supply

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologise.

Another member of the opposition party said: "I think that there is not one Canadian or Quebecer who questions the importance and value of the five principles set out in the Canada Health Act".

The hon. critic again said that the federal government should uphold the five principles. Maybe I am not confused, maybe members of the opposition are confused.

The five principles of the Canada Health Act embody the whole concept of what is most important to Canadians. What Canadians constantly use to define themselves as a people is Canadian medicare. It is an example of how federal principles can act in partnership with provincial governments, which administer the program, to make things better. The Canada Health Act enhances medicare. It continues to tell us who we are as Canadians. It binds us together in terms of our values, in terms of equity, in terms of fairness and in terms of compassion.

In 1984 when the Canada Health Act was introduced it was unanimously agreed on by all parties in the House.

It makes sense. The Canada Health Act binds the country together while at the same time it gives the regions the freedom to be able to administer and decide with flexibility what it is they require in their region. I would like to use the Canada Health Act as a very good example of how we can have national standards, enshrine them in legislation and yet give freedom to the provinces to administer that act. It has worked extremely well.

National principles tell us that we have an objective which we are all working toward. At the same time we allow the provinces to decide how they will meet those objectives, based on things such as their economy, the needs of their people, geographic and demographic differences. It gives the provinces freedom but at the same time it holds the country together.

We should look again at what the Canada Health Act has given to us. We are one of the few countries in the world that enjoys a high standard of living, the best quality of life. The GATT, when it looked at the measurement of outcome, which is infant mortality, we rank second or third in the world in terms of those measures and those outcomes. Obviously national standards legislated with provincial jurisdiction to administer has worked. Canadian medicare is an example of how well it works and how well it can give us flexibility at a time when global competitiveness is what we are talking about, when Canada needs to be competitive with the rest of the world.

It makes sense to me that the federal government would transfer money to the provinces to administer other aspects of social programs, post-secondary education and social assistance, in the same way, looking toward a national objective that could be competitiveness.

The human resource will be the resource of the 21st century. Canada's medicare has enhanced our human resource potential. It has given us a competitive edge in terms of the fact that healthy people work. The less sick days, the less time off work, which makes any business profitable and give us an economic and competitive edge.

If we negotiated with the provinces for a set of national standards for post-secondary education and training, we would enhance the ability of the country to be competitive and to have trained people able to compete with the rest of the world.

This makes sense to me. I started off by saying that I was confused. I end by saying that this is not the real question. It is a political and hidden agenda by a group that does not really want to do anything but destroy the country and fragment what it has meant.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was very happy to hear the comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, except for her conclusion that the denunciation by the official opposition of the federal government's interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction is politically motivated and does not meet any of the population's concerns. Her speech also suggests that the Bloc Quebecois should willingly agree to let the federal government interfere, as I said earlier, in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I will give her an example and I would like her to give me her opinion on this. In Quebec, there is a consensus among all the stakeholders, that is, the political parties, the unions and the employers-where sovereignists are few and far between-with regard to manpower training, which is in fact an extension of the educational jurisdiction. There is a general consensus to call for the recognition of Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction in this area.

The federal government, your government, continues to reject this demand, which, I repeat, has nothing to do with the constitutional options of political parties but which represents a consensus. This is an outright rejection by the federal government. The same goes for all other areas of jurisdiction. That is why we oppose federal government interference. Again, we are saying that the federal government should withdraw, transfer to the provinces the tax points corresponding to these expenditures and let them administer these programs in the best interest of their people. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member suggested that he does not understand why I would say this is a political agenda. It flies in the face of common sense. That is why I say there must be another agenda.

Surely we are talking about creating a set of principles. As I said earlier, principles give us a national objective. We are talking about making Canada a competitive country. Nowhere else do I see the ability to pull together as a country, to cross interprovincial barriers. Then we could have a common principle of training and an agenda saying what we aspire to as a country. At the same time we could give more autonomy to the provinces so they could develop appropriate programs and appropriate ways of dealing with their provincial and regional needs.

I do not understand what the hon. member has a problem with unless, as I said before, the problem is purely a political one; unless, as I also said before, we want to balkanize the country into 10 little provinces, 10 little mini-countries and 2 little mini-places in the north that we can call whatever we choose to call them.

Is that what the hon. member aspires to? What he is saying does not make sense to me.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, this motion tabled this morning by the Leader of the Official Opposition is the kind of motion which would bother the people across the way, as it makes a major amendment to the budget which, as it stands, literally spells disaster for Quebec.

The measures contained in the budget, especially for the next three years, does neither Canadians nor Quebecers any good.

This budget is nothing but smoke and mirrors, the effects of which we will see, of course, in two or three years. The Minister of Finance claims this is how Canadian federalism can be renewed. I think that he is going about it the wrong way. One thing is sure in all this: Quebec must get out of this system on the double. This government does not have the courage to announce before the referendum the specific measures hiding behind this budget. It takes advantage of the situation and better enjoy it while it can because I suggest this is the last year that a government which does nothing good for Quebec will debate to help itself to $29 billion of Quebec taxpayers hard-earned money year after year after year.

Once again, the official opposition is offering the Liberal government an opportunity to correct this unacceptable situation, a situation caused by one of their own, namely the Minister of Finance, who should really be called minister of family trusts or minister of large corporations.

The Minister of Finance expects this whole budget charade to climax after the referendum. Unfortunately for him, there will be no time for his scenario to come to a conclusion because, after the referendum, Quebec will be a sovereign state.

Between 1977 and 1994, Quebec has seen its federal transfer payments for health, education and welfare drop from 47 per cent to 37 per cent, as Liberal and Conservative governments succeeded one another in this place, passing the puck back and forth but essentially pursuing the same policies. This year again, the Liberal government is continuing the work of the Conservatives by reducing social transfers by up to 28 per cent. This translate into a shortfall of nearly $2 billion for the Government of Quebec. That is unacceptable and wrong.

In 1983-84, federal transfers accounted for 29 per cent of Quebec's budget revenues. In 1997-98, they will account for a meagre 12 per cent.

Although several initiatives included in the budget provide for a withdrawal of federal financial support, the federal government will interfere even more in the areas of health, post-secondary education and social assistance which, as you know, Madam Speaker, come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This is a shame.

Once again, the cuts announced in the recent budget will directly hit the poor. As is customary for the Liberals, the budget measures will not affect the well-to-do, because this would harm the Liberals' good financial relations. However, these measures will affect those who barely have enough to survive, and I mean survive, not live.

Quebec's finance minister, Jean Campeau, estimates that the cuts in transfers to the provinces will result in the federal contribution to social programs going down from 37.8 per cent to 28.5 per cent, over a two year period, that is in 1997 and 1998. The federal government just keeps offloading on to the provinces.

Last week, it was also revealed by the Canadian Council on Social Development that 17.6 per cent of Quebec families live below the poverty line. That rate is the highest in the country. This is a concrete result of a sick federalism which simply does not want to evolve. Also last week, we learned that 800,000 Quebecers have to rely on social assistance. Again, this is a consequence of federalism.

Premier Parizeau himself referred to that all time record as a national catastrophe. Why is that? It is because this government did not fulfil its red book commitment to create jobs. During the Liberal convention held last weekend, the Prime Minister even had the nerve to say that unemployment should be everyone's priority. However, with the red book, with so many promises, including some by the Minister of Finance, absolutely nothing is being done. No concrete measure was announced in the budget to put Canadians back to work.

Even the labour minister does all sorts of things, except find stable and lasting ways to allow Canadians to work without losing their dignity in the process. In fact, the minister's first action here was to pounce on workers. If the government wants, once and for all, to tackle the issues of duplication and unemployment, it should immediately withdraw from all areas

which come under provincial jurisdiction and give to the provinces the federal taxes representing the equivalent amounts. This is a simple, easy and efficient way of doing it.

Madam Speaker, since my time is up, I will conclude by saying that the electoral platform of this government included a commitment to put Canadians back to work. After 18 months in office, it is now obvious that the government is unable to fulfil that promise. Consequently, it should leave that responsibility to governments which are competent, which are close to the public and which can take action. I am referring of course to the provincial governments, including the Quebec government.

I ask all the members of this House to denounce the will of the federal government to restrict the provinces to the role of mere advisers by imposing on them new national standards for social programs.

Our constituents sent us here to protect their interests. Let us not disappoint them. Let us act, in all conscience, to ensure their well-being. Let us say no to this offloading of $7 billion on to the provinces.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the official opposition motion before us, with all respect, distorts the intent of the federal government's position as it relates to the Canada health and social transfer program.

It has been known from the beginning from the proclamations of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Human Resources Development that this new program, the details of which will be negotiated with the provinces, is aimed at giving provinces more flexibility to deliver on areas of exclusive jurisdiction, in the areas of health, post-secondary education and social assistance.

The government has said it does not mean a free for all. What the Bloc fails to recognize is that three out of every four Canadians, according to a poll last year, said they like national social programs.

When we speak of national social programs they have to be national in scope. If they are national in scope, it follows the national government has to have a say.

The new program is also aimed at ensuring all provincial governments acknowledge and affirm the importance of treating all Canadians equitably, of ensuring citizens from coast to coast have equal opportunity of access to the same standard of living, to the same opportunities in education for youth, to the same levels of support for the poor, to the same quality of care in health for the sick.

The new federal transfer program clearly recognizes the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces. What the Bloc has failed to recognize and refuses altogether to acknowledge is the unity and equality of all Canada's citizens.

The new program is not about imposing new standards and is not an arbitrary one. It is about affirming our national commitment to the five principles of medicare to which all Canadians subscribe. We know that. It is about reaffirming our national commitment to give our youth the best type of education and training. It is about reaffirming our national commitment to assisting the poor who have become under privileged beyond their control wherever they come from.

Do the member and his party want one class of poor in one province and another class of poor in other provinces? Do the member and his party want one class of education for the rich and one for the poor? Do the member and his party want medicare to be destroyed? Perhaps the ultimate question is do the member and his party not want one Canada for all?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I would like to remind members of the official opposition that the period provided for questions or comments is five minutes.

I recognize the hon. member for Chicoutimi, if he wants to respond. He still has two minutes left.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course the official opposition does not need the advice of anybody in this House. In his comment, the member said that he did not want to create categories of people who are more educated or less educated than others. Only the provinces can give these kinds of assurances to their people and guarantee them that there will not be different categories within the system. Everybody should clean up their own backyard.

The Quebec Liberal Party wants a decentralized federalism, it wants the federal government to give the provinces, particularly Quebec, all the tools they need to govern themselves, whereas, in this House, members of the Liberal government are trying to stop progress in its tracks. I wonder who in this House wants to create different categories. The answer is simple: it is the members opposite with a federalism that they are not even willing to renew.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in this House to strongly support the motion put forward by the leader of the official opposition, on behalf of my constituents and all those who will be affected by this bill, because these

are the people who will fall victim to the questionable schemes of the current government.

In his motion, our leader denounces the will of the federal government to restrict the provinces to the role of mere consultants by imposing on them new national standards for all social programs. He also denounces the interference of the federal government in the health, post-secondary education and social assistance areas.

Federal interference in these areas is not just another Constitutional issue, because it will have very real consequences on the daily lives of our constituents. Let us examine how this will come about.

Bill C-76 is the statutory instrument the government intends to use to implement its budget. So, it is a very important piece of legislation even though it looks daunting at first glance. When you analyze it, you realize that it can have a tremendous impact on programs. This year, however, the government had quite a surprise in store for us. It slipped into Bill C-76 some words which will have significant consequences on Quebec and on the rest of the provinces.

For example, the part concerning the Canada health and social transfer deals not only with health and social assistance, but also with health, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services. This is important. The federal government is interfering in areas which, as you all know, come mostly under provincial jurisdiction, as defined in the Constitution Act, 1867. The federal government must have a reason to act this way.

When you read the other provisions found in this bill, you realize that this type of interference is pernicious. It allows the current government to control provincial activities and programs. If a province implements a policy or a program the federal government does not agree with, parts, or all, of its subsidies will be cut. This is a disgrace, because, as I said before, all the areas affected by this bill come under provincial and not federal jurisdiction.

Under this bill, the government will also have the right to determine what represents a good program. That is right, to make things a little worse, the federal government will be able to decide, all by itself, what is a good program that deserves to be financially supported and what is a bad program that deserves to be condemned.

I remind the House that we are talking about a whole set of programs-education, social assistance, social services and health-which directly concern the public. We might as well abolish provincial governments and let the federal run everything.

Let me remind the House and my constituents that the subsidies about to be cut come from tax revenues and that these revenues come from the taxpayers who live in the provinces.

Let us look at the strong possibility that the federal government will not like the programs that the Quebec government puts in place. In the current scenario, the outcome is very simple. The federal government will inform Quebec, and if the province does not get in line, deciding, on the contrary, to keep its programs, Ottawa will cut its funding. This money will have come from the pockets of Quebecers, but would be used to fund other provinces' programs because the patriarchal federal government will have decided to punish the prodigal son, Quebec.

Quebecers want nothing to do with a wholesale delegation of powers to Ottawa. At the very least, the federal government should respect the distinct character of the Quebecois people. On this issue, 50,000 witnesses who appeared before the commissions on the future of Quebec requested more autonomy for Quebec. In concrete terms, this federal invasion is already damaging for Quebecers; if Bill C-76 is passed, the situation will be even worse.

In my riding, 25 per cent of all families are headed by single parents. And 79 per cent of the population in my riding lives in rental housing, and three quarters of these rental units were built before 1960. Of these households, 38 per cent sink over 30 per cent of their income into housing costs. In my riding, 29 per cent of the families are considered to have low incomes. In the downtown core, one person in three lives below the poverty line. The life expectancy of people living at the foot of the Côte d'Abraham is 10 years shorter.

That is reality according to taxpayers, some taxpayers in my riding. These people need assistance programs: employment, housing and daycare assistance, income supplements. The taxpayers in my riding will be taken hostage, despite themselves, by a government which has set its sights on job training and employment assistance programs which only confuse and discourage the unemployed and cost taxpayers a fortune.

Just think of all of the educational programs which interfere with the ministère de l'éducation's mandate. They are legion and, above all, cost the taxpayers of Quebec a lot of money.

Where did this obsession with controlling everything come from? Does Ottawa believe that Quebec is unable to take care of its own affairs and its population? If so, it should be said loud and clear: it will get a response from the population.

In closing, I would like to say to the members of this government: "Hands off, you ultra-centralists. Let the provincial governments, which know their populations and their needs better than you, handle their own affairs. Until the whole issue is settled once and for all, you had better listen to Quebec".

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member's speech. While I do not question the sincerity with which she spoke, I do question her understanding of some of the essential elements associated with block transfers to the provinces.

I am quite surprised she would be against this measure taken by the government because it essentially addresses some of the concerns she cited in her speech.

I will be extremely specific on this issue because sometimes facts, figures and proper statistics are missing in debates in the House of Commons, particularly when they originate from the opposition.

As a result of the new transfer we are able to support programs like APPORT. Because of the restrictive nature of the Canada assistance plan, prior to this transfer we were not able to do that.

SUPRET, a work income supplement that preceded APPORT, was rejected under CAP. Now because of the new arrangement with the provinces that could be supported. The Quebec sales tax refund and various social services provided in schools were submitted for CAP cost sharing during the 1970s. These were rejected because they did not meet the CAP definition of welfare services. These are just some of the examples.

The hon. member must understand that by having the Canada social and health transfer we are responding to the call by provincial governments to build in the type of flexibility that speaks to co-operative federalism, something the hon. member should reflect on.

Has the hon. member taken the time to clearly look at all the issues, at all the programs rejected prior to the establishment of the Canada social and health transfer? Will she reconsider her position and applaud the government for this excellent initiative?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I see the hon. member did not quite understand what I meant. If I misunderstood, then everyone in this House misunderstood.

When I look at the provisions in this bill, they propose a certain amount of flexibility but then go on to say that the federal government may do such and such for the purposes of "maintaining national standards, where appropriate-". What happens if the programs proposed by the Government of Quebec do not suit you? The bill goes on to say: "-maintaining national standards, where appropriate, in the operation of social programs". This means that if these programs do not suit the present government, it will create a national standard.

What will happen to the Canada social transfer for education, if we consider that Quebec accounts for 25 per cent when deciding whether it is appropriate or not and the remaining 75 per cent will be able to vote on national standards? What will happen in the education sector, when we realize that this area comes under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and we have a francophone majority in Quebec, while you constitute an anglophone majority in Canada? National standards might not be appropriate to the education system in Quebec.

I realize that the parliamentary secretary is exercising his own judgment in this debate, but I do not think he has the requisite sensitivity to decide which programs could be implemented in Quebec.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a specific question on health.

Before we had national medicare there were not the five principles for it. Now we have them following the federal-provincial negotiations of the past.

Does the member agree with the preservation of universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public non-profit administration of our health care system, and the absence of user fees and extra billing?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. The hon. member for Québec, very briefly.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are really at cross purposes, because the other side seems to confer an entirely different meaning on certain words. When you say: "We want to be flexible", well, flexibility means transferring the money and telling the provincial governments: "Do with your programs as you see fit".

You do not talk about national standards when you want the provinces to be autonomous in certain areas.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Resuming debate. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. If I understood correctly, you intend to share your speaking time with the hon. member for Outremont.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Madam Speaker, with the tabling of their motion today, the separatists continue their propaganda campaign.

The Bloc Quebecois is simply repeating a position that is contrary to fact, contrary to the budget and contrary to reality. Accordingly the government will vote against the Bloc's motion. The budget underscored our desire to give Canadians good government in Ottawa. The budget marked the start of a new era and of a new way of managing the federation that is simpler, more efficient and more mindful of the provincial governments' jurisdiction.

The budget gives the provincial governments all the manoeuvring room they require to meet the needs of their people. We took steps to reform the provincial transfers, and our action plan will lead to a system that operates better and is financially sustainable. We maintained our commitment to equalization payments-one of the pillars of Canadian federalism.

However, in 1996-97, the other major programs-the established program financing for health and post-secondary education and the Canada assistance plan-will be consolidated into a single block transfer: the Canada health and social transfer. It is the block transfer long sought by the provinces, which will enable them to be innovative to suit their priorities. We instituted this block transfer long demanded by the provinces and the members of the Bloc. Why do they oppose it now?

The new Canada social transfer combines three separate transfers into a single transfer, thus reducing administrative problems for the provinces. It ensures maximum flexibility in the design of provincial programs that suit their needs. At the same time, we increased system flexibility by reducing the conditions governing these programs to a minimum. As the Minister of Finance indicated in his speech this morning, he will be proposing amendments to Bill C-76 to the parliamentary committee.

Accordingly, clause 13(1) (b) will read as follows: `` (b) In order to apply the conditions and criteria provided in the Canada Health Act with respect to public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility and the provisions on extra billing and user charges''.

In matters of health, it is very clear that the principles of the Canada Health Act valued by Canadians from coast to coast will have to be honoured. We often refer to these five principles, but what exactly are we talking about? Public administration means that the program must be not-for-profit and managed by a public authority; comprehensiveness means that the program must cover all essential health care services provided by hospitals and physicians; universality means that services must be available to the whole population; portability means that the program must cover all health care services provided to residents temporarily outside of the province, territory or country; accessibility means that services must be offered on an equal basis to all residents, under the same conditions, without a fee or any other constraint that might unduly limit access.

Within these principles provinces have the flexibility to tailor services to their population, allowing innovations such as community health centres, les CLSC, in Quebec. With flexibility, innovation and commitment costs can be kept at reasonable levels while ensuring our health care system continues to provide the level of care of which we can be proud.

The bill will be further amended to read as follows under section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d):

"(c) To enforce the national standard outlined in section 19 providing that no minimum residency requirements can be demanded or allowed with regards to social assistance; and

"(d) To promote common principles and objectives developed in accordance with subsection 3, concerning social programs other than the program mentioned in paragraph (b)".

In the area of social assistance, the only thing the federal government demands of the provinces has to do with residency. For example, a Quebecer cannot be refused social assistance in Ontario, or in any other province, because he does not meet the minimum residency requirement. Certain opposition members may be dreaming of depriving Quebecers of this freedom of movement.

The new Canada health and social transfer gives the provinces more freedom to pursue innovation and improve social programs so that they better meet the needs of their people. Because of cost-sharing and its restrictive requirements, the present Canada assistance plan prevented such innovation.

The Quebec government is a leader in the area of innovative social programs such as APPORT-Parental Wage Assistance. However, APPORT and many other innovative programs could not be funded under CAP because of the cost-sharing conditions it sets.

For example, APPORT was deemed ineligible for CAP funding because it was not means tested. Many other Quebec programs, which were not eligible to cost-sharing under CAP, could now be funded by the Canada transfer.

Let us mention, for example, the work income supplement, the Quebec sales tax rebate and the social services provided in schools, including probation services for young offenders. The Canada social transfer will now allow the provinces to test innovative ways to provide social services and assistance.

Post-secondary education, which the opposition talked about, is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. You may, however, be surprised to learn that the federal government contributes 50 per cent of funding for this sector so that Canadians across the country can receive a good education. There are essentially

no conditions attached to post-secondary education, especially in Quebec, which in the past 30 years has been free to do what it wants in this sector with the money from the Canadian government.

All these proposals are aimed at enhancing our social programs. They will be discussed with the provinces and must be approved by mutual agreement before being implemented.

The Minister of Finance will therefore amend clause 13(3) to read as follows: "The Minister of Human Resources Development calls on all provincial officials to consult with one another and work together to come up with a set of common principles and objectives regarding the other social programs referred to in paragraph (1)( d ), which could apply to the transfer''.

We hope that the provinces and the members of the Bloc Quebecois will recognize and share the Liberals' concerns with regard to leadership and compassion and their desire to increase equity and efficiency. This new, more flexible formula allows for much more efficient provision of services to Canadians, without compromising quality.

That is why the introduction of this transfer in 1996-97 will be accompanied by a $2.5 billion cut in the total amount. This represents a reduction of only 1.5 per cent in Quebec's budget. In comparison, federal spending will be cut by 7.3 per cent in other sectors and 18.9 per cent in the sectors included in the program review.

So it is obvious that we treat social transfers to the provinces more favourably than our own expenditures.

In closing, allow me to state that the budget clearly points to a reduction in the conditions attached to social programs. If principles are established, it will be by mutual agreement. I deeply regret the fact that the opposition is giving people in Quebec such misleading information on important issues.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, for the past 18 months, the federal government has been trying to explain to the House what a flexible federal government is. It has also been trying to explain what the status quo is. I think that status quo means continuing with the same thing. Also, in trying to explain what a flexible government or what the status quo is, the federal government is doing exactly what it preaches in the cuts.

During the sessions of the regional commissions, federal and provincial Liberal members did not even have the courage to come to Quebec to explain what the status quo and a flexible government were. Had they done so, they would have told us that they were getting ready to make cuts in health, education and professional training programs.

Instead of making cuts in each province, the federal government decided to become a centralizing government and to cut provincial transfers. Because of these transfer cuts, the provinces are obliged to cut and transfer some responsibilities to municipal governments and also to bear the brunt of these cuts.

I would like to remind the minister who just spoke that the Quebec government pays $28 billion in taxes to Ottawa and sends $2 billion in GST, for a total of $30 billion. Including cuts, privatizations and closures, can the minister tell us how much money Quebec receives on the $30 billion that it sends to the federal government?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to make a few comments about the regional commissions. They have now finished their work and what they have done clearly proves that we had good reason to refuse to take part in those commissions. They were, as we say in Quebec, packed with people who had already made up their mind about sovereignty and unfortunately those commissions only reflected a foregone conclusion. They were absolutely not representative of public opinion in the province and, as all the polls showed, they reached conclusions that were contradicted by the opinion of a majority of the population.

Therefore, regional commissions have clearly been a waste of money for Quebecers and that 100 per cent of Quebecers, including yours truly, have paid for commissions which reflected only forty per cent of the public opinion. This is a waste of money and the wrong way to use provincial taxpayers' money. While poverty continues to increase in Quebec, the Parti Quebecois government, supported by its brother the Bloc Quebecois, continues to waste taxpayers' money.

With regard to the second issue, transfers to provinces, I think it was clearly demonstrated in the last budget that total federal expenses will be reduced from $120 billion in 1994-95 to $114 billion in 1995-96 and $107 billion in 1996-97. The federal government is reducing its spending twice as much as it is reducing transfers to provinces.

The government obviously had to be downsized and the same thing should happen in Quebec. We have faced up to our responsibilities and 69 per cent of the population approved our budget. I would also like the government of Quebec to face up to its responsibilities and start answering the real needs of Quebecers.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for sharing his time with me.

Today, I realize something that, in fact, I had already realized a long time ago, that there is a policy guideline to be followed. At the beginning of this Parliament, I thought that perhaps the

official opposition would be constructive in its attitude. Unfortunately, as many other speakers said before, members of the official opposition are unable to go beyond pure political partisanship. The motion tabled today by the Leader of the Opposition is an obvious and eloquent demonstration of this fact.

Today, they are trying to speak against the Canada social transfer. I must say I am astounded. I am certainly not the least of Quebec nationalists. I worked tirelessly for decentralization, for more flexibility in the management of programs by provinces. I am proud to state in this House that the Canada social transfer is a remarkable example of decentralization.

This social transfer, basically grouping together the Canada assistance plan, post-secondary education and health, is very easy to manage. It eliminates a lot of jointly managed areas. It is a fiscally responsible system and also a system allowing provinces to gain more independence in the administration and management of their own social programs, since it gives them the means to meet the needs of their citizens.

Members speak of national standards, claiming that any national standard would penalize a province, whether it is Quebec, Ontario or any other.

I represented the Minister of Human Resources Development when we dealt with the reform. I want to tell the House that, of all those who spoke to me, no one was against the idea of a national standard. The reason is simple-people want national standards if they are established in a concerted way, in co-operation. That is what the Canada social transfer is letting us do. We establish standards together, as a team. When one believes in Canada and in a place for Quebec inside this federation, it is possible to reach a consensus as to guidelines uniting the provinces from coast to coast.

They are trying to have people believe that a national standard is a terrible monster that would be in everybody's way. In other countries and other regions, people are speaking of globalization, union, unification, whereas here we would like to confine ourselves to a certain area and to refrain from adopting standards that would allow for some liberalization, some interprovincial exchanges. We did so in matters of trade, last year.

That is what we are doing at the social level. We are just being open-minded, we are just showing some form of progressiveness, showing that we believe deeply in Canada and Quebec.

You know, this debate is about the Canada social transfer but we could also talk at length about the human resources investment fund created by the same budget. This fund, which meets the expectations of the provinces in every respect, will ensure that the management of training programs is decentralized to the local community level and that community-based organizations are empowered to administer training funds according to the needs of the community or the locality.

That is what federalism means to our government. That is the way of the future in terms of federalism. That is progressive federalism. Still, to achieve this form of federalism, you have to be a good player and want to be on the team.

I could go on about what our government has done to improve and decentralize the federal system. The problem is that, talk as we may about a federal system that works, we come up against a government in Quebec and, in this place, an official opposition which do not want to listen. They do not want to listen because they know that our government is a very open one. They know that, if they participate in our renewal process through administrative agreements, program changes, approaches like rethinking the role of the state, it is going to work and, if it works, ultimately, this will mean the end of their old dream of separation.

For my part, I will tell them this: Rise above strictly partisan interests and strive to look after the interests of Quebec and fight for the people of Quebec. Strive to renew the Canadian federal process. This is what we are doing.

Earlier, my colleague referred to the national commissions. It is pretty easy to figure out what Quebecers want. They want us to look after their interests by restructuring the economy, by creating jobs and, particularly, by putting an end to these constitutional debates. They want to see the economy improve and they want us to move forward.

It is shocking to see that the report tabled, which cost millions of dollars to produce, does not insist on what people said. On the contrary, it concentrates on the ultimate objective, which is Quebec's separation.

In conclusion, what we want is to go on. We want to help workers, not only in Quebec, but all across Canada. We want to continue to improve the economy. We are getting there: last year, we created 433,000 new jobs. We want to ensure tomorrow's prosperity by providing our workers with tools.

The human resources investment fund is one measure which will ensure that our workers have the necessary tools, that they get adequate training and that they are able to face tomorrow's challenges, including foreign competition on international markets. Proud Quebecers and proud Canadians think big, and this is why we made that commitment.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, since my hon. colleague is talking about workers, on behalf of 250 women of my riding, I will read a few sentences for his information: "We live in a rural area where the situation keeps getting worse, especially for the last year and a half. Our villages are having problems: young people leaving, a deficient and deficit ridden economic structure, a saturated job market,

high unemployment, reduced public services and an aging population". Forty-one per cent of the families in the area are poor or very poor, whereas the poverty rate is 28 per cent for Quebec as a whole.

What this government lacks is a vision for society. There is absolutely nothing. There was the infrastructure program to create jobs, but we do not hear about it any more. It is coming to an end. This morning, a deputy minister came to present a forestry plan: budget cuts of 57 per cent over a three period for the Canadian Forestry Service; downsizing of 410 positions, one third of the workforce; closure of 11 regional offices. And then they pass on the bill: because there is no work, they cut unemployment benefits and the provinces are left to do the dirty work.

Those women and those men are deeply disappointed. They are disgusted. At this point, they say that we lie tothem. We are told: "You sovereignists are blocking things". Quite the contrary, we are part of the federation. Here is my question: Is there any way in this country to create jobs instead of forcing people onto social welfare, onto unemployment insurance, especially in rural areas where things are surely more difficult?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. First of all, he mentioned in his question that this government does not have any social vision. I will not tell you that the current government has a clear policy and an objective that we set and maintain, contrary to the official opposition, but I attended the official opposition's convention. One had to witness what happened in their workshop on separation to realize to what extent members of the official opposition are still looking, after 25 years, for some kind of social vision. Therefore we have no lesson to take from the official opposition in this matter, quite the opposite.

As to the regions, we take to heart the regional problem in Quebec and Canada. That is why our efforts have been focused on economic and job creation policies. The Minister of Industry and Trade presented a strategic plan to ease the conversion of our economy. Let us make no mistake about it. Canada's economy is restructuring just like that of the rest of the world. Tomorrow's markets will be quite different, and the emphasis will be on technology. This restructuring of the economy is now under way, and we sincerely hope it will be in the best interests of all Canadians, including Canadians who live in the outlying regions.

At the same time, the Minister of Human Resources Development is busy planning programs to help workers prepare for the challenge of high technology. We are designing programs that will be tailored to the needs of outlying regions, because Canadians have asked us to do so.

I would add, in conclusion, that we will also review the unemployment insurance program in order to meet the dire needs of Canadian workers. But there is a problem: I would ask the official opposition to move ahead, to stop talking of things that citizens are not interested in and start working with us to help and better serve the population.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to respond to the invitation extended by the hon. member for Outremont, but I prefer to keep my comments relevant to this debate, because today we are discussing a motion tabled by the official opposition. I think it would be very useful to recall what the motion says.

That this House denounce the will of the federal government to restrict the provinces to the role of mere consultant by imposing on them new national standards for all social programs through the introduction of the Canada Social Transfer, which will enable the federal government to interfere even more in such areas as health, post-secondary education and social assistance, all of which come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

We are talking about national standards in areas under provincial jurisdiction. The Minister of Finance keeps repeating that he wants this program to be more flexible, to provide greater flexibility than before, but the fact remains that the same national standards prevail.

To illustrate my point, I will quote from Bill C-76 which implements certain provisions in the budget. In section 13, Part V, we read the following:

-a Canada Health and Social Transfer may be provided to a province for a fiscal year for the purposes of- (b) maintaining the national criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act, including those respecting public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, accessibility, extra-billing and user charges; and (c) maintaining national standards, where appropriate, in the operation of other social programs.

I would also like to recall what was said by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, when he explained that by combining all three programs into a single consolidated block transfer referred to as the Canada social transfer, beginning in 1996-97, the provinces, and I quote: "-will now be able to design more innovative social programs, programs that respond to the needs of people today rather than to inflexible rules. However"-and this is particularly important-"flexibility does not mean a free-for-all. There are national goals and principles we believe must still apply, and which the vast majority of Canadian support".

I was on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development which travelled across Canada last fall and was one of the members who visited every province. I listened to the testimony of all the groups that appeared before the committee,

a total of 1,200. It is not true that everyone across Canada wants national standards for education and social programs.

In Quebec, there was a general consensus against this principle. For instance, for the second time this year, I think it was on February 2, a unanimous resolution was passed by the National Assembly. Not just the Parti Quebecois but the Liberal Party as well supported it. The resolution was moved by the leader of l'Action démocratique, who asked the federal government to withdraw from manpower training. This has been said time and time again, and the government is still trying to give the impression that it intends to be more flexible.

I may recall that Bill C-76 does not contain all the measures that are to be implemented. Other legislation was passed previously. Bill C-28, for instance, which was about financial assistance for students and was passed on June 23, 1994. What did this bill provide? It was supposed to provide for two things, basically. First of all, for appointing the appropriate authority that may designate institutions of learning that may receive financial assistance from the government. What did it do? Instead of leaving this authority with the provinces, with the Lieutenant Governor in Council as before, it decided that the Minister of Human Resources Development would determine the appropriate authority. First point.

Second point. There were new conditions regarding the right to withdraw with full financial compensation. In the past it was automatic. However, the bill which precedes this one, but which remains in effect with the government's national standard, provided that Quebec, or any other province wishing to take advantage of this right to withdraw, had to propose a program exactly the same as the federal program on all counts, or receive no funding. Earlier, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cited a series of cases in which the Canada assistance plan did not fund programs, among others, the current PWA program in Quebec.

He listed seven or eight others and talked of the current situation, saying it would likely change with the amendments not yet officially tabled and whose legal scope was still unknown. What we are saying is that the federal government said very clearly in its budget, and in this bill, as well, that it wants to pay less and that it wants to transfer part of its deficit to the provinces, but that it wants to continue to impose conditions. This is rare. It would be normal to expect that certain conditions would be dropped. This, however, seems out of the question.

At first glance, when we reduce the expenses in the Canada social transfer and combine the three programs, if we take things literally and dropped at least 11 clauses from the bill, which contains other provisions, national standards, what would this mean for the reduction provided for in the budget? It means letting three sectors fight for the same money. This is not really acceptable. At least set guidelines and let provinces do their own thing.

Earlier, I felt like putting this to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who seemed almost to be talking about heaven. In talking about the current situation and federal flexibility, he almost seemed to be talking about heaven. Everything was fine. What is the real situation, however? For a year now, no Minister of Education in Quebec or in the other provinces has wanted to support the federal program of the Minister of Human Resources Development. No Minister of Health has participated in the forum on health. No provincial minister responsible for social assistance has wanted to take part, because they find the federal program unacceptable.

Is this flexible federalism? Is this the flexible federalism that is so fine, so positive, that none of the provincial authorities want to even take part in it? No, this is simply window dressing. As long as we have these national standards and we do not see the amendments that the Minister of Finance alluded to this morning, as long as the federal government does not withdraw entirely from areas of strictly provincial jurisdiction in health, education and social assistance and does not give the provinces the tax points that would allow them to manage their own programs, we will not be able to talk about flexible federalism.

Having another minute to go, I will talk about another situation. We talk about flexible federalism, but in actual fact there were enormous cuts which mean that 5,000 to 6,000 households more per month are currently requesting social assistance. Why? Because last year, in Quebec, on April 17 precisely, $2.5 billion were cut from unemployment insurance. The period of entitlement to benefits was reduced and that has meant 40 per cent more welfare cases in Quebec.

Is that going to give Canadians and Quebecers greater confidence in the flexibility of the federal government? No. I repeat, what the federal government wants is to pay less and to require more through its national standards.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. As the hon. member for Lévis pointed out earlier, the federal government has cut transfers to the provinces while claiming this would give the provinces more flexibility to manage their own affairs.

I myself have never seen a government cut funding to the provinces while claiming that such a reduction would give them more flexibility to manage the departments in question. As the hon. member for Lévis explained, the federal government gradually increased its interference by setting national standards, which it has finally realized are excessively costly to

implement. As has been demonstrated, the federal government's accumulated debt now amounts to $600 billion.

Now that the federal government has realized that the standards it has put in place in the last 20 years cost too much, it says it will now transfer responsibility to the provinces by reducing funding. Let me give you an example. When the Quebec government decided to establish its own health care system, the federal government was not very happy about it given its strong desire to impose national standards. The federal government tried to use that opportunity to impose national standards. Quebec and another province were then adamantly opposed to federal interference in health care. However, the federal government insisted and the provinces backed down, provided that it return 50 per cent of health care expenditures.

The federal government is now contributing around 30 per cent, while the provinces must make up the remaining 70 per cent. The federal government is still aying that federal standards must be maintained. This puts the provinces, especially Quebec, in a tight spot as far as health care spending is concerned. They cannot manage health care as they see fit, because they must comply with national standards while the federal government slashes health care funding in Quebec.

That is all I wanted to tell my fellow citizens in Longueuil and throughout Quebec. I wanted to inform them that the federal government is preventing us from managing health care properly. I ask the hon. member for Lévis whether he agrees with everything I just said.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the last part of his comment reflects the extensive parliamentary experience of the hon. member for Longueuil. And I will draw from this experience to raise the following because, after all, the numerous attempts of the Conservative government should be mentioned. The member for Longueuil, now in his third term, is aware of all the Conservatives' efforts in this respect, including at the time of the Meech Lake accord. The previous Conservative government may be criticized for many things, but certainly not for not having tried to reach an agreement. The same thing in Charlottetown.

Quebecers are aware of the fact that, over the past 30 years, numerous attempts were made to reform the federal system. It never worked, to the point that, weary of federal inaction, a number of members of Parliament-and the hon. member for Longueuil is one of them-resigned and, with the current Leader of the Opposition, they formed a new federal party, a party focusing on the only way to change anything to anything in the coming months or year: the Quebec referendum.

In this referendum debate, faced with all these failed attempts, empty promises and window dressing about possible administrative arrangements that never materialize-or when they do materialize, it is because the federal government acted arbitrarily and unilaterally as usual-the people of Quebec will realize that they have no choice but to vote "yes" in the upcoming referendum on Quebec sovereignty.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to discuss Bill C-76, because this legislation is very instructive. Indeed, it will enable those Quebecers who might still be undecided to understand the message conveyed by the current federal government.

Several attempts were made to reform federalism. Recently, some members of the Quebec Liberal Party still entertained such hopes in a document referring to a quiet adjustment. The document said that the Canadian federation must be extensively decentralized, that it must fully respect provincial jurisdiction, and that federal interference must end, particularly in Quebec.

We now have the federal government's answer to these Quebec federalists who, in spite of multiple but vain attempts, may have thought, in good faith, that they could reform the federal system. The federal government's answer, Bill C-76, seeks to allow systematic federal interference in many areas which come under provincial jurisdiction.

We had national standards in the health sector. Now, we will have similar standards for post-secondary education. Quebecers fully understand the implications of such a measure. A student loan and scholarship program was developed over a period of 25 or 30 years in Quebec. Although not perfect, that program helped several generations of students, while reflecting the vision of fairness which prevails in Quebec regarding the need to invest in education.

Meanwhile, the federal government wants to impose national standards in that sector. Last summer, social program reform gave us an idea of what this means. It means that provincial governments will have to quickly adjust to a national program which will significantly increase the indebtedness of students. In fact, the only way to avoid that will be to increase the tax burden of Quebecers if the province refuses to endorse the federal government's vision.

If I were a young Quebecer today, I would see Bill C-76 as a clear indication of things to come under the federal system. The federal government's vision is "one Canada, one nation", along with national standards and ways of doing things which will standardize the way Quebecers will be treated, students in this particular case.

Assuming they listened to the Minister of Finance this morning, when he referred to some vague proposals, how can Quebecers and Canadians from other provinces believe for one

moment that this reform is being proposed in a spirit of co-operation with the provinces?

Let me give you concrete examples. I am not going back 10, 15 or 20 years. Take the national forum on health. The federal government decided, without first ascertaining the provinces' participation, to adopt a rather disjointed approach regarding the major issue of medicare. Even this afternoon, the Standing Committee on Finance heard officials representing the National Federation of Nurses' Unions, who said that the forum does not at all meet the needs identified, nor does it solve the problems related to Canada's health care system.

The bottom line is that, if a business in the private sector managed the health issue, for example, like the federal government does, it would have gone bankrupt ages ago, because the government has increasingly been asking the people out there on the front, those who have to deal with the problems, workers in the health care sector, nurses, auxiliary workers, doctors and employees of community service centres to make a personal effort and to find creative ways to do more with less. But the federal government did not think it was necessary in this case to secure the co-operation of the provinces or of the people who run the daily operations. A business that worked that way in the private sector would not last a year because that approach is totally unrealistic and incapable of meeting the needs of the industry, and it would find itself in the same situation as the government now finds itself.

How has the federal government managed to keep things running this way for so many years? It has succeeded because it has borrowed from future generations. Using slightly artificial means, it financed a health care system because that was what the people wanted. But the federal government also taxed, and Claude Castonguay, who can be called the father of the current health care system in Quebec, made this point well in an article for La Presse . He said in that article that the federal government exerted an irresistible pressure on provincial governments to commit themselves to the principles of universality and accessibility, by offering to pay for half of the provinces' costs. But, now that the system is bankrupt, Ottawa does not propose the solution put forth by Mr. Castonguay, which is to co-operate to resolve the problem. Instead, Ottawa decided to retain only its role as referee, whereby, paradoxically, even though it has significantly reduced funding, it will still be able to impose national standards.

It will be able to treat people like the owner of an apartment building who has had a good relationship with a tenant for several years and has offered that tenant certain services, for free, which he or she could not afford, mostly because the owner had extra money sitting around. Suddenly, the owner, this endless source of funds, says: For next year, effective tomorrow morning, I am reducing my heating subsidy by 15 per cent. I am certain that you, as tenants, will all be able to find a way to continue to live comfortably under these conditions and that we will continue to get along just fine.

Faced with such a situation, the tenants, or the provinces, may well try for several years to make the necessary adjustments. But, in the mid term, it is inevitable that the federal government's choice will lead to a balkanization of our social programs. It will have exactly the opposite effect. That is because the federal government is no longer capable of providing the financial support for which it took responsibility, in an artificial manner, in the past. Today, it has offloaded the bill for its social programs, without handing over the responsibility for those programs as well. That is quite an achievement. It has decided that the provinces can make up their own minds how they want to finance these programs but at the same time, they will have to meet certain requirements that do not necessarily reflect their needs.

Briefly, Bill C-76 has killed any hope for renewed federalism. The federal government is stretched to the limit. It tried to finance these programs by borrowing money which, in turn, added to our cumulative debt, but today, it is no longer in control. It is at the mercy of international lenders, and we now find it is unable to provide adequate services. How did we get into this mess?

How come our system no longer makes sense? The trouble is that unlike many other countries, we did not have a chance to adjust our constitutional responsibilities to the market situation and to what is going on in the real world. This has led to the absurd situation we have today, where the federal government tables a bill that drastically changes the rules of the game without making the constitutional changes that should accompany this kind of decision.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Before proceeding to questions and comments, pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kamloops-health; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West-infrastructure; the hon. member for Mercier-unemployment insurance; the hon. member for Mackenzie-transport.