Debates of May 2nd, 1995

Supply

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, really, the things you hear in this House. As the critic of the official opposition for regional development it is with pleasure and interest that I rise during this official opposition day. The federal government's attitude, denounced by the Bloc Quebecois, which consists in restricting the provinces to a strictly advisory role by imposing new national standards following the budget of the Minister of Finance in February, has a direct negative effect on regional development in Quebec.

Bill C-76. an act to implement certain provisions of the federal budget for 1995-96, far from eliminating the intrusions of the federal government in areas under provincial jurisdiction,

allows it, by imposing national standards, to multiply its interventions while increasing the impact of its intrusions.

We know that following this budget Ottawa had decided to merge in a new "Canada social transfer" its whole package of contributions to the provinces in such areas as health care, social services and post-secondary education. This decision of the federal government represents in the short term some savings and Liberals call that a fight against the deficit.

The fact is that as a result funds allocated to the provinces are cut by $2.5 billion in 1995-96 and by $4.5 billion in 1997-98. In 1997-98 the Canada social transfer envelope is going to be allocated among the provinces according to a criterion yet to be negotiated. If the chosen criterion is the present mode of distribution, which is not very likely, Quebec will suffer a $1.2 billion shortfall.

Rather, the objective of the federal government and its Minister of Finance is to allocate the Canada social transfer envelope on a per capita basis, so that Quebec will in fact bear 41.7 per cent of the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces across Canada in 1997-98. With this distribution criterion, the loss of income for Quebec jumps from $1.2 billion to $1.9 billion.

With the new Canada social transfer and the implementation of new national standards, the federal government, while relegating the provinces to a purely advisory role and further centralizing action, will once again impoverish Quebec and threaten regional development.

In the last budget and in Bill C-76, we see that the Minister of Human Resources Development intends to use the savings from unemployment insurance reform-that is $5 billion in cutbacks in 1994 plus $700 million more in 1995-to create an human resource investment fund.

This fund will be used, among other things, to finance manpower training programs, a power unanimously demanded by Quebecers. Clearly, this has a direct impact on regional development. With initiatives such as the Canada social transfer and the cuts in unemployment insurance, the federal government will use all the money it is going to save elsewhere for massive, centralizing and discretionary interventions, totally disregarding totally the policies of Quebec in the area of regional development.

In fact, the goal of the measures contained in the February budget is to direct the economic development of Quebec, to refuse to recognize the distinct character of that society by assimilating the evolution of Quebec into the Canadian policies on regional development.

In Quebec, companies, trade unions, local authorities and the co-operative movement no longer fear to take their development into their own hands. In forums such as the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, they reached a very wide consensus and demanded that the government of Quebec be the only one to control the economic development of these regions.

With the budget measures I already mentioned, there is no doubt about the intentions of the federal government. It wants to stimulate Canada's gross domestic product by promoting an area, an industrial region. So, the economic climate really takes precedence over the structural dimension in most of the interventions of the federal government in the regions.

We know that today, the federal government is interested only in small and medium size exporting and technology firms, in total disregard of the overall strategic regional structural development plans which concern all areas of activity in a society. This attitude, and the interference of the federal government in regional development, will be harmful, in the long run, to the development of Quebec.

We have to remember that regional development is not covered under the Canadian Constitution, and that forces Quebec to enter into endless negotiations to conclude agreements or "agréments", as the member for Brome-Missisquoi says.

Those agreements inevitably open the way to numerous awkward intrusions by the federal government in regional development. Bill C-76 proves that. These are obvious, clear and open intrusions. The Quebec regions suffer from the numerous interferences in regional development and from the lack of consistency of government policies.

While dropping its financial involvement in the provinces, the central government is leaving its administrative structures there. Consequently, duplication and overlap not only remain, but are sanctioned. Even if those administrative structures are becoming more and more symbolic, they are even more costly and hinder the dynamics of regional development in Quebec.

The Federal Office of Regional Development is a good example of squandering by the federal government. When will there be a comprehensive structural reform of the federal regime? In spite of the decentralization measures that the government announced at the beginning of the year, the Liberals have not made any changes. More and more, they are using national standards as a means to centralize. Centralization is the golden rule of federal Liberals.

The objective of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, is to make the federal government realize that it has to withdraw completely from regional development in Quebec and recognize Quebec as the sole master of regional development. For over forty years, there has been, in the nation of Quebec, a much more

efficient and responsive attitude, in terms of regional development, to the needs of peripheral regions. I repeat that at present, there is a series of general agreements between the government of Quebec and its 16 administrative regions.

Each region has conducted its own strategic study on small business and industrial development. These genreal agreements confirm the importance for Quebec to be close to these regions and to decentralize within the province, contrary to the what the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec is doing, in the light of federal imperatives based on a mythical and centralizing vision of what industrial development should be in Canada.

The new role of the Federal Office of Regional Development is merely a duplication and overlapping of jurisdictions. Merged with the Department of Industry, it has become a business service centre, whereas there is already in Quebec a totally adequate information service and strategic assistance analysis entity available to small business, including exporting firms. The existence of a parallel network of 13 regional offices within the Federal Office of Development-Quebec is inappropriate, a duplication of services and, ultimately, a waste of public funds.

Because of cuts to provincial transfers as the result of the Liberals' February budget and Bill C-76 implementing it, financial transfers to Quebec will decrease by 32 per cent between 1994-95 and 1997-98. That is viable federalism, I would even say that is Ottawa's new administrative flexibility towards Quebec: cut, cut, cut.

It is important to understand that financial transfers are not a gift from the federal government, but are funded with our taxes. A sovereign Quebec would recover about $30 billion in taxes that Quebecers are paying to the federal government. It would recover this amount and administer it itself, according to its own priorities and its own strategic development plans. But because of cuts made by the federal government to provincial transfer payments between 1982 and 1993, taxes paid by Quebecers to the federal government increased by 143 per cent, while financial transfers from the federal government to Quebec only increased by 50 per cent. In terms of regional development, this situation has had the following effect since 1983: annual federal funds for regional development increased by only 50 per cent in Quebec, while they increased by 250 per cent in the Maritimes and by 300 per cent in Western Canada.

In conclusion, as far as Quebec is concerned, this means that the Quebec State and its regions should manage their own policy. And when Quebecers have decided their political autonomy by basing their development on education, professional training, dialogue between unions, businesses, universities and communities coming from the 16 administrative regions, then Quebec will have total control over the tools for its own development. There will then be an open and happy country.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my colleagues of the opposition would want to debate on a motion which says that the federal government will impose standards on provinces. I read the document tabled in this House by Mr. Martin on February 27, 1995 and nowhere can I find the word "impose". It only says that the federal government wants to start discussions with the provinces in order to establish standards and goals, so that there will be minimum standards all across Canada.

I do not understand why my colleague is so allergic to the words "goal" and "standard". There is nothing different there.

I would simply like to mention to the hon. member that in the Hansard of May 4, 1989, on page 1291, Mr. Bouchard who was then a conservative minister, said and I quote:

That being said, the best way to guarantee that social programs will be preserved is to maintain a strong government that is able to intervene and to stand by its commitments to our neediest fellow Canadians.

So stated Lucien Bouchard on May 4, 1989, page 1291.

I agree with what Mr. Bouchard said in 1989 and as a matter of fact I-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I simply wish to remind the House that as parliamentarians we should always refer to one another as the member for such and such riding, the minister of such and such portfolio, the Leader of the Opposition, but not by our names.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask my colleague of the opposition if he agrees completely with what the Leader of the Opposition said in 1989.

I would like my colleague to tell me if he agrees with what his leader said in 1989.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for his question. I just want to remind him that the most vicious aspect of this venture is the use of the words "national standards", and we know why.

When the federal government had the power to spend money borrowed from future generations, there were no national standards. The federal government was spending money and interfering in provincial jurisdictions as much as it pleased.

Now that the federal government must slash its budget, it prefers to talk about flexibility rather than spending power. However, your government's flexibility is strictly a matter of passing the bill to provinces and telling them: "You will make your own decisions while applying our national standards". That is underhanded.

Now, regarding the quote you gave us, one of your colleagues-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. Again, I perfectly understand that today's topic is very important and members who rise have very strong ideas to communicate. However, I would like all the remarks to be addressed to the Chair.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague says, it is a warm exchange of views.

Concerning the National Forum on Health, I wish to quote comments made by the member for Saint-Henri-Westmount when she was a provincial minister: "The federal government's behaviour is absurd". That is what the Quebec Minister of Health, Lucienne Robillard, said in an interview on the phone.

"How can we even think of reforming the health care system without the participation of the provinces who are responsible for delivering the services? It is simply unacceptable". That was reported in the September 27, 1994 issue of La Presse .

This is what your colleague said, the one that is now among us, your courageous colleague who was not elected but appointed as a member of Parliament. A member had been democratically elected, but he was given a plum position in the Prime Minister's office in exchange for his riding, where this courageous minister had to struggle fiercely to be elected.

I want to quote this same minister in response to your statement. Here is what she said as minister. "I say things as I see them",-this is what your colleague for Saint-Henri-Westmount said-"in Quebec the provincial government is still the level the most directly, exclusively and inextricably linked to the future of our society. A distinct society which, whatever we might think or say, is able to conduct its own destiny and prepare its future". That is what we want to do in Quebec-prepare our future by becoming a people, by becoming a country".

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

Mr. Speaker, I could hardly wait to rise in the House on this allotted day to take part in the debate on an issue which is crucial not only in Quebec but especially in Quebec.

Let me read you the motion, because I think it is important to put this debate in its proper perspective, especially since our Liberal colleagues seem to get lost in all kinds of considerations. The motion put forward reads as follows:

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.

That is under our current Constitution, of course. This is the motion now before the House.

First of all, I would like to say how stunned I was to see that the Minister of Finance was the main spokesperson for the government, the individual chosen by the members of the government to speak on their behalf at the beginning of this debate, even though the motion concerns the Minister of Human Resources Development more directly.

Where is the Minister of Human Resources Development? Why is he not taking part in this crucial debate where we would be very pleased to hear what he has to say about the federal policies and their impact on areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction? In my humble opinion, I think the Minister of Human Resources Development should be called the Minister of Human Resources Discouragement and Impoverishment, because that is exactly what he is.

We are now faced with a government whose main objective is to pick on the destitute. They were elected under false pretences, because during the election campaign, they said they would defend our social programs, the permanence of our social programs and the rights of the poorest members of our society. Right after the election, in his first budget, the Minister of Finance, or rather the minister of provincial impoverishment, made cuts in transfers to the provinces and in unemployment insurance, and as if this was not enough, he struck again in his second budget with even greater force.

Last weekend, I was shocked, as were, I am sure, the majority of Quebecers, to hear the Prime Minister criticize the Quebec P.Q. government and all the sovereignists for focusing the debate on the Constitution instead of tackling the real problems facing all Canadians and particularly Quebecers, problems such as the high levels of unemployment that we are experiencing these days.

I was shocked because the Prime Minister and several of his colleagues are constantly saying in this House and elsewhere that if the Constitution is being discussed in Quebec right now, it is because of the sovereignists. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is sheer hypocrisy. The Liberals who are saying this are nothing but hypocrites. They say things that they know are

not true. They know full well that, over the last thirty years, it is the federalists who have fuelled the constitutional debate.

I will simply cite some figures to demonstrate how much the federalists, and not the sovereignists, have negotiated, gossiped and wasted time over the past few years on the issue of the constitution. Please allow me to cite some very telling figures.

Between 1960 and 1992, they held 56 conferences, sessions and meetings. It was getting so ridiculous that they had to keep presenting them under a different light to try to ensure that the population did not realize what was really going on. And I am only talking about meetings at the political and not the departmental level. I am talking about all of the energy spent by the ministers of the federal government in each of the provinces to prepare for these meetings and to follow up on them.

There have been a total of 19 commissions, committees, working and advisory groups, for example, the Laurendau-Dunton Commission at the end of the 1960s, the Pépin-Robarts Commission in the 1970s, and the plethora of consultation panels leading up to the demise of the Meech Lake Accord and the breakdown of the Charlottetown negotiations. Nineteen commissions since 1965, all of them at the political level.

Now, on to the cases which have come before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitution. A total of 212 cases, notices and rulings by the court affecting the federal government and a provincial government. That is the result of the constitutional debate led by and for federalists. And this leads me to conclude that the federalists, particularly the Liberal Party, of which the Prime Minister has been a member for at least 30 years, and this Liberal government have been and still are responsible for keeping the constitution industry alive and well. They have sunk billions of dollars into it, which has contributed to the enormous debt we now face.

That is our real constitutional problem. We sovereignists do not want to talk about the Canadian Constitution. We are proposing a solution to our current problems. What we want is our own Quebec constitution, which is what we were told in February by 50,000 men and women across Quebec. They came to tell us about the values on which Quebec society should base its constitution.

There is a very broad consensus on the subject among the people of Quebec. We as sovereignists have a way to solve the constitutional problem. We do not want to talk about the Constitution, about constitutional renewal or fence mending. We want to propose a definitive solution.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to give an example of the impact of the Canada Social Transfer, of what happens when the government interferes in areas under provincial jurisdiction. Consider post-secondary education, an area over which the provinces have sole jurisdiction. According to the federal government's policy, the policy of the Minister of Human Resources Development, transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education will be cut while, of course, certain standards will be set, which was unheard of in the past.

This would include reducing the amounts of bursaries, obliging universities to raise their tuition fees and letting students borrow more. It seems to me that what the federal government, after putting us into debt over our ears, to the tune of more than $500 billion, what the Liberals and the Minister of Human Resources depletion are suggesting now is to let students get into debt individually as well.

Now that we are in the hole as a country, they are telling students to do likewise. That is the federal government's policy and that is what this motion wants to condemn today.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Guelph-Wellington I am pleased to speak to the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

My constituents have expressed to me their concerns and their hopes for the future of social services in Canada. They have participated in a number of ways in my constituency. They have come to a town hall meeting sponsored by me and attended by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development. They have written letters and made many telephone calls to me. They have completed the booklet that was developed by the minister of human resources.

They have given me one clear message: they want social services that protect those most vulnerable and will ensure that Canada and every province in Canada remain prosperous for many years to come.

The Leader of the Opposition is wrong when he attempts to suggest that the Canada health and social transfer restricts the provinces to the role of consultants. What we are attempting to do is create a genuine partnership with the provinces and territories and continue to build a strong and evolving relationship in our Confederation.

The people of Guelph-Wellington welcome any effort to better administer social services and to give the provinces more flexibility to allocate the resources where they believe they are most needed. They have also asked me to ensure that national standards remain and that the federal government not only continue to provide funding to provinces but also ensure that medicare and social assistance standards and principles remain intact.

They admire the Canada Health Act commitment to public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, probability, and accessibility. They know that these principles are part of the reason the World Health Organization today declared Canada one of the world's five healthiest countries in which to live.

If this government were to abandon the principles of this act we would betray the trust that has been placed in us by all Canadians. My constituents have elected me to be a part of a government that is realistic and compassionate, one that recognizes the changing times, the new realities, and demands new solutions.

The people of Guelph-Wellington are hard working and dedicated to their families and their communities. They believe that these principles must remain the foundation of the Canada Health Act and health care in our country.

The Leader of the Opposition and all members of his party can rest assured that Canada's health care system, a system that helps define this great nation to itself and to the world, will be fully protected by our government.

Our country has had a long tradition of compromise and dialogue. From the very beginning our Confederation has evolved, and the people of my riding have supported this evolution. They know that if Canada is to remain the best country in the world the government must respond to new challenges and work together to secure our future.

The Minister of Human Resources Development will strengthen our social programs by inviting his provincial colleagues to work together through consultation and mutual consent to develop and improve programs which will benefit all Canadians.

My constituents have told me very clearly and often they want all levels of government to work together. They want our confederation to continue to protect them and their families from unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances. They know one of the reasons we are the best country in the world is that our social security network and our health system offer safeguards and protection from loss of employment or illness.

The Leader of the Opposition encourages unfounded rumours that the federal government has singled out the province of Quebec and is imposing special standards on the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer. This simply is not true. The Quebec government has been a leader in developing innovative social programs. For example, it has developed a program which encourages low income families with children on social assistance to increase their employment earnings and it inspires low income earners not to fall back on social assistance. These kinds of programs are exactly what my constituents have asked for; programs which encourage independence and build up the human spirit rather than programs which encourage the cycle of reliance.

In the past programs like these have not been shared under the Canada assistance plan. Cost sharing requirements under CAP are too restrictive. As well, the previous Quebec government came up with proposals for delivering social services for school children but these too were rejected because they did not meet the definition under the Canada assistance plan of welfare services.

It is because of these new and innovative programs sponsored and encouraged by governments like Quebec that the Canada health and social transfer is needed. The new transfer affords flexibility and allows the provinces to continue their important work in encouraging social service recipients and others to better care for themselves and for their families. Under the Canada health and social transfer Quebec and other provinces will have much greater flexibility; flexibility with responsibility to experiment with imagined ways of delivering social assistance and social services. What more could we ask for?

From these examples I hope the Leader of the Opposition and his party would be giving full support to the Canada health and social transfer legislation.

All of us were elected under unique situations and circumstances. Each of us in the House is here because our constituents were tired of politics as usual. They were tired of one level of government blaming the other and they no longer wanted to hear excuses as to why their best interests were not represented. They have asked us, no matter what party affiliation, to make the country better and to make its systems of social security and health better.

We have a choice. We can move ahead or we can linger in the old way of blame and suspicion. My constituents want better from me, better from the government and better from the opposition. They want us to work together to ensure Canada remains the best country in the world in which to live. They want positive new ideas. They want innovative approaches. Most of all, they want Canada to remain united for their benefit and the benefit of Canadians from coast to coast.

On October 25, 1993 the people of Canada gave us their hopes and their dreams for a better country. They want the provinces to manage what they do best and they want national standards which safeguard every single Canadian. They know the government is not conspiring to weaken the social fabric of Canada, but instead is attempting to strengthen it.

I invite the Leader of the Opposition to work with us, for his constituents and for mine, to build up the weak, to give aid to the sick, to protect the most in need and to encourage independence

to those who rely on government. The people of his riding and mine demand no less.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity today to talk about medicare and the Canada Health Act. I want to explain how and why the government supports medicare and why we on this side of the House will continue to support it.

The federal budget tabled in February was one of the most widely supported budgets in the history of Canada. Some people, in particular the Reform Party, say the budget raises questions about our commitment to health. They ask whether we will continue to have the capacity to maintain a national system and they ask whether we will uphold the principles of the Canada Health Act.

There are no grounds for dire predictions that the federal government will not be able to uphold the Canada Health Act or that Canada's health care system will disintegrate as a result of the budget. Take the new Canada social and health transfer. It will not diminish, weaken or erode the strength of our health system.

On many occasions the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have been quite clear on the matter. Let me remind the House how clear the budget speech was on this matter. The Minister of Finance said no change will be made to the Canada Health Act.

The Minister of Health was equally clear when she spoke to the Canadian Hospital Association last March: "There is no change in the government's commitment or in my own commitment, to uphold and enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act". As the Prime Minister said in Saskatoon, for Canadians these principles are non-negotiable.

The word health was added to the title of the new transfer when the enabling budget legislation was introduced to the House. This was no accident. It confirms the government's intention to remain active in enforcing the principles of the Canada Health Act.

The new transfer agreement will be in a block funding arrangement. That move may worry some members but let us not forget block funding for health care and post-secondary education is now 18 years old. The established programs financing funding mechanism put in place in 1977 is a block funding arrangement. There is no requirement in it for provinces to spend money on health. However, what is there and what was nailed down in 1984 when the Liberal government passed the Canada Health Act is the requirement that provinces deliver health care services in compliance with the five conditions of the act or face a deduction from money transferred to them.

Some worry that under the current thinking about the Canada social and health transfer no clear dollar amount will be denoted as a health portion. Again it is worthy of emphasis that under the EPF funding there was no longer a relationship between what was called the health portion and the actual provincial expenditures. It was merely a historical artefact based on the national averages of some 20 years ago.

Nothing in the budget will change the government's technical ability to enforce the Canada Health Act's principles. The enforcement mechanism remains the same. The deductions from transfer payments are necessary; they will be made. Canadians can rest assured the Canadian social and health transfer will not reduce the federal ability to enforce these principles. We will enforce them because the principles of universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration are ultimately rooted in our common values; Canadian values such as equity, fairness, compassion and respect for the fundamental dignity of all. We will also enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act because we support an economically efficient health care system.

It is worth reminding opposition members that the principles of the Canada Health Act are not just words. They have meaning. I want to touch briefly on each of the principles.

The first principle of universality is that all residents in a province must be insured by the provincial health plan if it is to receive federal support. This means we must all have access to services. People cannot be deinsured because they might be too costly for the system to cover. We cannot be turned away from a hospital door because we have not paid our annual tax bill or some provincial premium. If we need health care we will be treated in the same manner as everyone else.

Accessibility on uniform terms and conditions is the second principle. It means we should not face any financial barriers in receiving health care or extra billing, user charges, facility fees or up front cash payments. If the service is medically necessary we will get it at a time defined by medical considerations, not by the size of our wallet.

The next is comprehensiveness. This principle recognizes Canadians have a range of health care needs and that those needs should be met. If we scratch the surface a little more we will see that comprehensiveness again means the practice of fairness. It would not be fair to ensure only some medically necessary services and not others. I do not believe we should choose at the federal level which services are medically necessary. In my view we should continue to interpret the Canada Health Act as requiring coverage of all medically necessary services.

The government will continue to take a position that if a province insures any part of the cost of a service it is an indication it believes it to be medically necessary and all of the costs should be covered.

Justice Emmet Hall in his original royal commission on medicare recommended a very comprehensive package. Liberal governments in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s accepted the concept of comprehensiveness, although not quite as broad a concept as Justice Hall's. Liberal governments in the 1990s will not turn their backs on these principles.

The fourth principle is portability. It means Canadians maintain their health care package when they travel or move. The portability principle is rooted in one fundamental element; underpinning our federation, it recognizes our mobility. Canadians are free to work and travel anywhere in the country without fear of losing their health care insurance coverage. Portability is what makes our national health insurance system truly national. Each separate health insurance plan may be provincial in origin but it is recognized nationally in every province.

The fifth principle is public administration.

Our health insurance plans must be operated by provincial governments on a non-profit basis. In my view these principles never seem to get the same attention as others. But they should. It is the core of our ability to contain costs in the system and thus to deliver quality care at an affordable price. One would think that of all five principles our Reform friends across the way would certainly be able to relate to this one.

Public administration is a means by which to ensure the principles. Health care insurance is operated and funded through governments. We can guarantee that our health care is universal, accessible, comprehensive, portable, and that we have direct control over it. It is through public administration that we demonstrate our collective responsibility to the health care of Canadians.

I look forward to further comments this afternoon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his remarks in which he stressed the principles advocated by the federal government, enabling it to impose national standards on provincial governments, particularly the Government of Quebec, in areas of jurisdiction that are strictly and exclusively provincial.

The hon. member, my colleague, can therefore convey to us the importance of these principles for the federal government, how dear they are to the Liberal Party. However, if we look at the facts, including Bill C-76, we discover the real principles behind the government's wanting to get involved in provincial jurisdiction, even though it no longer has the means to do so. After getting us in debt, as I said a few minutes ago in my remarks, the federal government, which will have roughly a 28 per cent share in the cost of the social programs of the Government of Quebec, after 1998, still wants to impose, it insists on imposing, national standards. But what are these principles so dear to the heart of the federal government?

Clause 37 of Bill C-76 speaks eloquently in this regard. I will take the liberty of quoting it:

In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5-

that is, the transfers in health care,

-the government of the province- b ) shall give recognition to the Canada Health and Social Transfer in any public documents, or in any advertising or promotional material, relating to insured health services and extended health care services in the province.

In concrete terms, it is the old "flag on the hood" principle, so dear to our Prime Minister. We remember the Prime Minister when he was the minister responsible for the adoption of the constitution in 1982, he was the one who made us swallow the current constitution, which excluded Quebec. He said: "All that interests the separatists is a flag on the hood. They like driving around in France, in Paris, with the Quebec flag, thus mocking their own people, the representatives of the Government of Quebec". Now here we are in 1995 with the "flag on the hood" principle in the Canada Social Transfer.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this principle, which we see in black and white in Bill C-76, where it says that the Canadian flag must appear on documents, cheques and so forth, when the federal government is involved, even though it is less and less involved.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Unfortunately, the hon. member has very little time to respond to the remarks of the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.

Within no more than a minute I would ask the member to respond to the comment and question of the member.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond as quickly as I possibly can to my hon. colleague across the way.

The number one point I would like to make is that it is called responsibility. A responsible government sets a commitment, a goal and a challenge. It is prepared to meet the challenges that were set in a very balanced and responsible fashion for all parts of Canada, including the great province of Quebec which I greatly respect.

As I mentioned in my speech, it should be done with the Canadian values of equity, fairness, compassion and dignity for all Canadians in mind. That is the way to do it in a balanced fashion.

If members of the Bloc concentrated their efforts on some of the areas indicated in the Prime Minister's speech on the weekend, they would be far better off than they are with their discussion of separation and dividing the country.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the Bloc's motion concerning the Canada health and social transfer.

While its wording is a little extravagant and its claim somewhat exaggerated, the motion's analysis of the CHST that it does not go far enough toward the decentralization of health, advanced education and social assistance is one that we as Reformers could agree with.

Like the Bloc, Reform believes that the federal government must give the provinces, which have exclusive constitutional jurisdiction over the programs, more freedom to design and administer social programs. We share the Bloc's belief that programs of this nature should be delivered by levels of government closest to the people rather than by distant federal bureaucrats. Unlike the Bloc, however, Reform differs in how to decentralize the powers.

The Bloc has only one solution to our nation's problems, separation, but we in the Reform Party do not want to destroy Canada. We want to build it.

Reform believes that the solutions to our problems lie not in separation but in legislation and negotiation. Our Constitution already grants us the flexibility we need. Over its first 128 years the Canadian federation has proved to be extremely malleable. It has bent and reshaped itself to meet the needs of the day. Even in the absence of full scale constitutional reform I am confident our federation will adapt again to the needs of circumstances in the next 128 years.

In defence of the government, the Canada health and social transfer is a modest example of rebalancing the federation through legislation. While the government's primary motive in creating the Canada health and social transfer was to save money. a secondary intention is undoubtedly to further decentralize programs. The most promising element of the CHST is the government's decision to remove all federally imposed restrictions on welfare funding except the residence requirement.

By shifting to unconditional block funding the federal government gives the provinces more freedom to experiment and to innovate. It will allow the people of each province to decide how best to deliver the services the citizens want. Unfortunately this decentralizing thrust is not extended to health care and advanced education, the other two components of the Canada health and social transfer.

The federal government's refusal to amend or reinterpret the Canada Health Act and the pooling of health, welfare and education funds into a single transfer payment give Ottawa an even bigger stick with which to beat the provinces into submission. It is a backward step that will make it more difficult for the provinces to control their health care costs.

This aspect of the Canada health and social transfer is a perfect example of the federal government trying to have its cake and eating it too. In the budget the Liberal government unilaterally reduced its cash transfers for health, education and welfare by some 40 per cent, yet at the same time it is continuing to insist that the provinces play by its rules.

This just is not right. If the federal government wants to set the ground rules in areas of provincial jurisdiction then it has to pay its share of the burden. If it is no longer willing or able to put up the dollars, which describes the present situation in Canada fairly accurately, it must be prepared to step aside and let each province decide how best to provide for its citizens' health care needs.

The truth is that the federal government cannot afford to use its spending power the way it did in the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. The country is broke. It does not have the funds to deal with the programs as it has in the past. The federal debt, as we all know, is somewhere around $550 billion.

Just as important in political terms, further centralization is a non-starter all across Canada, not just in Quebec as the motion indicates. People are demanding the power and decision making be pushed down to the lowest level of government, to the grassroots. The Liberals are strong believers in central government. We can believe in rigid national standards but we can simply no longer afford them either fiscally or politically. Nor are they administratively responsible at this time in our history.

There is an alternative path we can follow toward a more flexible and decentralized federation which will offer provincial governments the freedom they need to make the choices they want for their respective citizens. To illustrate the alternative vision I look at the Reform taxpayers' budget that was presented to this assembly.

An amazing fact that no one picked up on in the budget is that the Liberals, the party of compassion, cut almost twice as much from the programs that make up the Canada health and social transfer as Reformers recommended in their alternative budget. In our taxpayers' budget we recommended reductions of $800 million in health, $200 million in education and $2.5 billion in welfare, for a total of $3.5 billion of expenditure reductions over a three-year period. In contrast, the government's budget reduces the cash transfer components of the Canada health and social transfer by $6.6 billion over the same three years. Who

has the most compassion in terms of the social needs of Canadians?

What distinguishes our proposal from the Canada health and social transfer is the decentralizing aspects of the taxpayers' budget. I would like to talk briefly about one element of the decentralizing initiative, the unconditional transfer of tax points to the provinces, which the budget of the Liberal government denies the provinces and Canadians.

The most significant difference between the CHST and our own Reform proposal is that we would transfer additional tax points to the provinces, whereas the Liberal budget would not. This is important for two reasons: first, because it provides increased flexibility and, second, because it ensures the stability of funding for the provinces.

On the first point, we all realize that the federal government can no longer continue to spend money it does not have. We in the Reform Party have openly acknowledged that and have stated publicly that as part of the Reform's deficit elimination plan we would cut $3.5 billion over a three-year period in the areas of health, education and welfare. Reformers also realize that if provincial governments are to absorb reductions of this magnitude they will need the freedom to innovate and to discover more efficient ways of delivering services.

That is why our tax point transfer is unconditional, with no strings attached. It is designed to provide maximum flexibility to the provinces of Canada.

On the second point, if provincial governments are to effectively provide these services then they must be given the resources to fulfil their responsibilities. They must be able to count on stable, long term revenue resources. Yet under the CHST this security does not exist. The federal government can unilaterally, at any time, reduce or alter the transfer to the provinces. This provides provincial governments with neither stability nor security.

Under the Reform's tax point transfer alternative, provinces would no longer have to guess how much Ottawa was going to send to them; they would know. This would allow them to extend their planning horizons, confident that money is going to be there. In addition, since the value of the tax points grows along with the economy, Reform's proposal would effectively increase funding for these programs over the medium and the long term.

In conclusion, Reform and the Bloc agree on the need for greater decentralization of powers to local and provincial governments. We also agree that the government's new Canada health and social transfer does not adequately meet this need. However, unlike the Bloc, we do not advocate destroying the country; we advocate rebuilding it. I would hope the suggestions we offer as the Reform Party here today, including the concept of transferring additional tax points to the provinces, will mark a positive beginning in this rebuilding process in our Canadian social fabric.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a case of strange bedfellows when we see the hon. member for Lethbridge joining forces with the Bloc: one is trying to separate us, the other trying to balkanize us, a different form of separation.

They propose we give all of this money to the provinces with no strings attached. Code word: break up the national health care program; do not give a standard payment for welfare; shaft those who have no consensus from one side of the country to the other. Those are the code words they use in the House every day. It is not fair to those who can least defend themselves.

On the welfare payments, you go to certain provinces and they ask you to take the next bus to British Columbia. That is the kind of compassion that comes from this kind of proposal.

The federal government has a right and a responsibility to stay in touch with those in need. When they set a national standard they should see that the money they transfer goes to meet that standard. That is the case with every program, and that should be put in.

For those people from Newfoundland to British Columbia and those in between it is important to see that their services are delivered equally. No one group in Canada should get better services than another when it comes to health care.

I am sick and tired of hearing remarks like: "We will give them the chance to do whatever they want". That is a great statement. They can do whatever they want with those who cannot defend themselves.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member I want to say this. In this federation we are trying to build it is time that we start to trust our partners. The partners we must trust are the provinces. The 10 provinces of Canada must be trusted to take on responsibilities to meet the needs of their citizens, determined by the priorities of the citizens in their respective provinces.

I have witnessed in my political career for 32 years situations where provinces often had a greater care and a greater compassion than the federal government with regard to the priority needs of the provinces.

When I come to this House it is disappointing to hear someone who has been around this assembly for some period of time and to hear the Liberal government, which thinks it has all of the answers and wants to centralize everything in a centralized bureaucratic system, tell the provinces what to do. They think

that under that system they are going to meet the needs of the citizens. We will not build federalism with that kind of mistrust.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the West mentioned, in his speech, that he was committed to keeping the country together. He also stressed how important it was to negotiate.

I would like to remind him that Quebec has long been asking in vain for a special status within Canada, in recognition of its unique French culture. This is not negotiating. The 1982 Constitution was forced on Quebec. We did not accept it, we tried repeatedly to negotiate. It would appear that the federal government is no longer interested in negotiating with Quebec. Once again, Quebec is losing. These are two reasons why Quebec wants to separate from the rest of Canada.

In his speech, the member also said that the federal government was bankrupt. Not only is it bankrupt, but as we saw, the Liberal government has no vision. It makes cuts everywhere. Without any vision, it lacks compassion for the less fortunate. This is not reassuring.

I want to tell you that another reason why we want Quebec to become sovereign, is that we will do better on our own, we know what our needs are, and we know how to solve our problems, if only the federal government did not interfere. This is why we want to separate.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, number one, I would fight and stand shoulder to shoulder with Quebec and any other province in this nation so that we are all treated equally. That is a very important principle.

I had the opportunity over the years to negotiate with the federal government and stand shoulder to shoulder with ministers from Quebec to fight for our fair share of health payments: social service payments, housing grants and moneys from the federal government. The province of Alberta and the province of Quebec at the negotiating and bargaining table over and over again, and I can say this without exception, always had the same point of view. We were partners in negotiating with the federal government to get our respective share of either federal funds or legislation that was required to carry out our responsibilities.

We were never in conflict with our objectives. That was part of the federation that was very important. A part that is often overlooked by Quebec and by other people in Canada is that Quebec did have allies in Canada fighting for the same cause and the same purpose. That should continue in this federation. I would be disappointed if it did not.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this problem.

I had an opportunity to meet with some graduates in my constituency last Friday from three classes of high school students in three different areas. I asked each one of these classes, "Why do you think health, post-secondary education, and welfare are being reviewed in Canada today?" They said to me: "We think this is a political agenda. This somehow is something the politicians must do."

When I explained to them I took from some brand new federal documents from StatsCan the following figures. These figures are a fascinating indictment of some of the things we have tried to do in our country. Servicing the federal government debt will cost $1,522 per person in 1994-95. The federal government in 1994-95 will spend $268 per person on health and $168 on post-secondary education. That is $1,522 compared to $268 and $168.

The students in those three high school classes said to me: "Isn't that the problem then? Isn't that the problem for Quebec? Isn't that the problem for Alberta?" My answer is yes, that is the problem.

It would be very easy to be an opposition member and point fingers and blame the Liberal government. I do not think that is helpful.

In the same report it goes on to say-just in case those in Quebec think they can point the finger only at the federal government-that the provincial debt in Quebec is the highest in Canada, at $8,413 per person.

These figures go on to show all the provinces lined up in terms of their debt. The next closest is Nova Scotia, with $8,405, all the way down to Alberta, at $1,404 per person. I invite members to look at these documents. They are publicly available.

It is not sufficient to stand back as an Albertan and say it is the problem of the federal government. This is a Canadian problem, a problem far too big to be pointing fingers at.

I have had occasion to try to determine who is leading the debate in Canada. My big interest is health care, and I find that the public is far ahead of the politicians in this debate. The CBC has just done a four-part program on the future of our health care system, something that is unheard of in Canada. At the end of their four-part program it did a survey and asked Canadians if health care, the way it is set up today, is affordable. This question was not asked in a political sense; it was asked to practical, commonsense Canadians: Can we afford health care the way it is set up today?

Before I go to the answer, 57 per cent said health care was the most important government social program. I agree. However, about 90 per cent of Canadians polled in that survey said they expected medicare would cover fewer services in the future; 45 per cent predicted all necessary services would be retained;

another 45 per cent said only the most essential services would be covered and that most people would have to pay for much of the other health care needs.

When Reformers stood in the House last Thursday to initiate the first debate on health care in the House literally in years, an old time parliamentarian said to me: "Is it not interesting who should initiate this debate on health care? There has not been such a debate for years." When we stood in the House and initiated this debate, the press said you cannot talk about this, it is a sacred program; you cannot talk about changes to health care. However, the public in Canada says otherwise. I think the public is ahead of the politicians.

Can we trust the government to do what is right? Can we trust the party opposite, the government of the day, to do what is right? I do not believe that we could hope for anything but. On health care, this government will do what is right. Canadians value this program so strongly that no one could get away with doing what is wrong on health care. Can we trust the government to move in the right direction on health care reform?

I listened to the Prime Minister say he felt that health care needed to return to basics. When my province asked for a definition of the basics, the hands went up and the answer came: "No chance for that". A senior medical practitioner in Quebec said virtually the same thing. And this is new information. It comes from the senior general medical practitioner in Quebec who said there needs to be a change in the way health care is delivered because "the Quebec public health care system is on the brink of bankruptcy." Those are Dr. Clément Richer's words, not mine.

Is the rhetoric sufficient on social program review? It is not. Are promises that were made in the red book 18 months ago sufficient on social program reform? They are not. Quebec is asking and I believe the Bloc is asking to be treated fairly under the new proposals. I support them in that request. They deserve to be treated fairly as does every citizen in Canada. Shall we blame, argue, point fingers? My advisers say no, we need to find solutions.

The motion the Bloc has presented is well intentioned, however, it does not point to any solutions. It seems to me to be pointing fingers. Members of the Bloc should look at Quebec's own debt. Look at the $8,400 worth of provincial debt. Consider that with the $18,000 of debt which is federal. The two go hand in hand and are extremely important.

I ask the question, what will keep Quebec in Canada? Surely that is my desire. Quebecers need the freedom to nourish their culture and their language. They need authority over areas of provincial jurisdiction. I feel that Quebecers looking at Canada as most Canadians look at Quebec, equals working toward a common goal. The rhetoric will die out. Practicality will win out.

I listened to the Minister of Health ask on Thursday, how would Reformers coerce the provinces into following national standards, and I shake my head. The provinces do not need to be coerced into following social program review. They need to have the tools. They need to have the information. They need to have the co-operation. They need to have the work of every single man and woman in these chambers.

It is a privilege to be a member of this House. When parliamentarians argue and gripe and frown and grimace at one another it sometimes detracts from the importance of the job that we do here. I dedicate my service to try to make sure that we have good social programs in Canada, programs that will survive the economic crisis we are in. That service is too important to be denigrated by arguing.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting with a representative of a community group on Somerset West in my riding of Ottawa Centre. The subject of discussion was the Canada assistance plan.

Groups have called on the federal government to enter into discussions with the provincial government in order to ensure that there are standards, objectives and goals and that the priorities are set straight. Also, they have called on the federal government to ensure that community groups such as the organization I mentioned are involved in the process when it comes to the delivery of programs or the setting up of principles. I support their demands.

I bring to the attention of my colleagues section 36(1) of the Canadian Constitution. It permits the federal government as well as the provincial government jointly to promote equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians to further economic development and to reduce disparities.

In fact, the federal government has a significant responsibility to ensure vertical equity among Canadians as well as horizontal equity among the country's regions. That is exactly what the government set out to do in the 1995 budget. I refer to page 53 of the budget.

The Minister of Finance stated that the federal government under the leadership of the Minister of Human Resources Development will invite all provincial governments to work together on developing through mutual consent a set of shared principles and objectives that could underlie the new transfer. In this way, all governments could reaffirm their commitment to the social well-being of Canadians. In other words, the government is committed to building consensus among the provinces and not imposing it on the provinces.

The submissions of both opposition parties seem to be clashing with one another. They are flying in different directions and missing the point of what this government is trying to do. What this government has tried to do is to consult with the provinces.

Did the hon. member have any representation from his constituency, as I did in mine, on the need for consultation and the need for setting minimum standards and goals and objectives when it comes to CAP transfers or block transfers to the provinces?

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can frankly say that I have not had any such consultations. In my part of the country the general consensus is that the federal government is too intrusive and has lost its moral authority. The $1,522 debt that it has discharged on every person in Canada has left them without the ability to do what they have traditionally wanted to do. Therefore there is no sense of that in my part of the country at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my Reform Party colleague for his presentation. He spoke about the Quebec debt being very high, as high as $8,400 per capita, and said that Bloc Quebecois members should look at what is happening in their own province before they point a finger at the federal government.

I think there is not one Bloc Quebecois member who rose in this House to say that Quebec's debt is unimportant and that we should not be concerned, quite the contrary. Members of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti Quebecois government know that during the ten years of Liberal government, the debt has more than doubled and that something has to be done about that situation.

The member also accuses our Bloc colleagues of not proposing solutions in this debate. Let me remind him that solutions were proposed, again by all stakeholders from the Quebec government. I would like to hear what he has to say on that point. When we speak about manpower training, there is a consensus in Quebec. All stakeholders, whatever their political affiliation, want the federal government to withdraw completely from that area and let Quebec take over. We ask the same thing for health and education. We want the federal government to transfer tax points and let us manage those areas. We will do so very efficiently.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Lethbridge said, there is a common ground between Quebec and many other parts of the country. On this issue where it speaks specifically about withdrawing from areas of provincial responsibility we do have common ground.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have a few minutes to participate in this opposition day debate on the Canada health and social transfer initiative put forward by this government.

Many things have been said about the recent budget by the Minister of Finance, mostly good things. Canadians have significantly expressed their support for this budget in poll after poll. On radio and television talk shows they expressed their support in vast numbers for the federal government's recent budget. This budget, I might add, will no doubt go down in history as a significant step forward for this country.

As Canadians see this budget as an opportunity to put the government's finances back on track after so many years of mismanagement, it would seem that the NDP in Ontario see this as an opportunity of a different sort. Our Bloc colleagues in this House see the budget as a chance to take something away from what has become a very positive discussion for Canadians.

Let me take a few moments and relate my thoughts on what the NDP is attempting to do in Ontario by focusing on the federal budget. It is clear that the NDP in Ontario does not have a record it can reliably depend on to get it through the Ontario election which is now under way. In fact, some of my colleagues may have received in the mail a package from the Ontario government called "The 1995 Ontario Budget Plan". It is a small document outlining what the NDP claims to have done and will do if re-elected.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I would caution the hon. member on the use of accessories or props. If he is going to quote from a document, I understand that full well. Otherwise I would caution him on the use of props.