Debates of Nov. 19th, 1998

Supply

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can always look forward to a bit of levity when the member for New Brunswick Southwest gives his speeches. There are not a lot of facts, just levity.

Let us get down to the facts. We inherited from the hon. member's government a $42.5 billion deficit that we cleaned up in five years. His government was in for nine years and it just made things worse.

The hon. member said that we cut money to the provinces. Here is what happened in Ontario. What he says is partially true. We did in fact cut transfer payments to the province of Ontario by $5.9 billion. But we gave Ontario extra tax points which amounted to $4 billion. As well, we have the lowest interest rates in 30 years, which represent $1.3 billion worth of savings—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, we are going to be have to be quick here. The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest has 50 seconds for a response.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has selective memory, because we did not add a nickel to the debt. The deficit was caused by the compound interest on the debt that his party left us. That is a fact. When Pierre Trudeau became Prime Minister of Canada in 1967-68 Canada was debt free. But that is an old argument and I will not get into it.

I have given the government credit in terms of deficit reduction. Unfortunately, it has done it on the backs of the provinces, hence the $7 billion extracted out of the system. Now it is balancing its books on the backs of the unemployed.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will take a minute to tell the member from the Conservative Party that some of his remarks were a great disappointment to us. For instance, he alluded to the fact that the government acted because it was not facing any opposition.

I want to make it clear that, the very first time a budget was introduced that cut back transfer payments, the Bloc Quebecois stood up to denounce the situation while the Conservative Party was all but absent from this House, and its only two members were not here very often to support us.

The hon. member has us to thank for having the opportunity today to rise and speak on this issue, because the motion we are debating was moved by the Bloc Quebecois. He should add his voice to ours today, he should congratulate us instead of condemning us and trying to divide the opposition.

We must face this government and denounce a difficult situation. I think the hon. member is in no position to lecture anybody.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like a lynching in the morning to focus the mind.

These people are obviously playing politics with health care because of the upcoming election in Quebec. They sat here in the House between 1993 and 1997 and never said a word about the cuts to health care back in their home province.

It was a slash and burn policy and they sat here in silent agreement and did not open their traps when it came to health care.

Now they find that their own premier is in deep trouble on health care, right up to his eyebrows, because he mismanaged health care from day one, starting right here in the House of Commons when he was sitting in the front row.

Bloc members are trying to salvage his career—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask my colleague, the Conservative health critic, a question about the metamorphosis of the Conservative Party, since we all know that the huge cuts in transfers began with the Mulroney Conservative government. However, I think that issue has been dealt with.

I would simply ask the member, since he is very familiar with the whole area of costs as a result of things like tobacco, is it not a factor here that we are dealing with a government that is not only cutting huge amounts out of the transfer payments, but is also contributing to the costs in the health care system by not dealing effectively with tobacco addiction and not dealing with proactive legislation dealing with the tobacco industry?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, both myself and the member for Winnipeg North Centre have been on our feet probably more than anyone in the House this week in terms of government legislation and what is coming down, including this opposition motion today.

She is right.

The government had a chance yesterday to do something about health care which at the end of the day would have saved the Canadian public $3 billion a year. I am talking about Bill S-13, Senator Kenny's bill, which would help to reduce smoking among teens. That is costing us 40,000 lives a year in Canada at a great cost to the health care system. I do support what the member is saying.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the opposition motion of the Bloc Quebecois. I would like to remind you that it reads as follows:

That the House endorses the provincial consensus reached in Saskatoon on August 7, 1998, that the federal government must restore, via the existing provisions of the Canada health and social transfer (CHST), its contributions to front-line health care services, starting with a payment of at least $2 billion, given that the federal government has already recorded an accumulated surplus of $10,4 billion for the first six months of the 1998-99 fiscal year.

That is $10.4 billion just for the first six months of the 1998-99 fiscal year. Where does this money come from? How did the government manage not only to eliminate its deficit but also to register a budgetary surplus?

The government achieved this surplus by misappropriating employment insurance funds, at the expense of the unemployed. It did this by cutting the Canada social transfer, which is the budget for health, education and welfare, and by going after the sick and the disadvantaged.

Since it came to office, the federal government has drastically slashed transfer payments to the provinces. In 1994, these payments amounted to $18.8 billion, compared to $12.5 billion in 1997-98, a decrease of $6.3 billion.

For example, in 1994, social transfers averaged $678 per capita. In 1998, this average has dropped to $386, the lowest in 20 years.

The provinces are faced with very serious problems in the health area, as the cost of health care keeps rising because of the ageing population and because of increasingly expensive drugs and new technologies. The impact of the cuts in health care are being felt not only in Quebec but across Canada.

Here are some examples. We are told that the people of Manitoba are going to Dakota to get medical attention. In Newfoundland, army doctors have been called upon to help relieve the pressure in emergency wards. We recently learned about the difficult situation facing hospital administrators in Ontario. Health ministers throughout Canada are telling us that they are feeling the impact of all these cuts.

Last August, in Saskatoon, the premiers reached a consensus and agreed to urge the federal government to pay back the $6.3 billion a year in transfer payments, now that the federal government has a surplus. All of them want the federal government to restore funding to the 1993-94 level of $18.8 billion.

They also asked the federal government to respect their jurisdiction. We hear that the federal government intends to reinvest in health care in the next budget, but it wants to do so without respecting provincial jurisdiction.

We are told about some kind of national infrastructure including a drug plan, home care and all kinds of other programs. The provinces will be told: “Here, we are giving you this money for these programs, but you have to abide by our standards. You are not going to be able to run your own show. We are offering you this money to put in place the programs we think you need”. Yet, the Constitution clearly states that health care is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

This is the reason why last August in Saskatoon the premiers asked the federal government, instead of creating new programs, to restore transfer payments to the level they were at when the government was elected. If the federal government insists on setting up such programs, the provinces should have the option to accept or reject them—this is what we call the right to opt out with compensation. If a province decides to opt out because, as is the case in Quebec, it already has such programs, it should be fully compensated.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Quebec.

I would now like to speak about the impact the cuts have had in Quebec: cuts to health care in Quebec amount to at least $1 billion a year.

Looking at the $6.3 billion in cuts to the Canada health and social transfer, Quebec alone has been hit by close to 30% of the federal cuts, which represents close to $2 billion yearly. It is estimated that 50% of the federal transfer of $2 billion, or $1 billion, goes to health.

When health care reform was being carried out in Quebec, a reform that was not absolutely necessary, but we were lagging behind the other provinces, imagine if we had been able to benefit from an additional $1 billion per year for health in Quebec. That would have meant more money for home care, more money for day surgery, more money for long term care, more for pharmacare, more for in-patient care.

The Quebec government had to react rapidly, as I have already said, because we already lagged behind the other provinces.

I think the Government of Quebec has succeeded where others failed, or dared not even try. In Quebec we succeeded, despite all the difficulties that can go along with such a reform. We succeeded while undergoing cuts in the Canada social transfer.

Had an extra $1 billion a year been available to the Quebec government for this reform, the Mauricie and central Quebec region, in which my riding is located and which receives approximately 6.2% of the total health budget, would have received $62 billion to be reinvested in my region.

The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region could have used another $38 million from the $1 billion claim against the federal government. Comparing this with the $34.4 million the Jonquière hospital receives, we realize we could use this money. This amount is almost equivalent to the entire budget of the hospital.

I therefore close by saying that the Liberals used the billions of dollars stolen from Quebeckers and Canadians to eliminate the deficit. Now it has to give us back the money we are owed.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, again and again we hear the rhetoric. The hon. member talks about jurisdiction.

I wish for once, instead of worrying about jurisdiction, they would be concerned about the impact on Quebecers and Canadians. They are so focused on jurisdiction. What this is all about is a reinvestment in health care, a reinvestment in Canadian priorities.

I would like to set the facts straight. Let us be clear. The decrease in transfer payments accounts for less than 3% of Quebec's revenues. The cuts that Quebec has imposed on the municipalities account for close to 6% or almost double the amount of the federal cuts.

Quebec in its 1997-98 estimates announced its intention to cut health care and education spending by 3.2% and 5.8% while at the same time indicating that other spending has increased by 4%.

While the hon. member might be arguing that health care is a priority, obviously as shown in Tuesday's debate health care is not the priority of the provincial government. I do not know why the hon. member is up here arguing for more money for Quebec.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Liberal colleague what sort of surplus he foresees for next year. If there is one, could part of it not go to health care?

I think the Constitution provides clearly, on the subject of provincial jurisdiction, that health care and its administration are provincial matters and that the federal government's role is to transfer funding for health, education and social assistance.

But the Liberals made cuts, and they still have the gall to tell everyone that they reinvested in health. They wanted to cut $48 billion, but they were pressured into cutting only $42 billion. That is not money reinvested in health. They just cut less. People are not dumb.

This government, which flatters itself on its ability, came up with a budget surplus that exceeded its objective of a zero deficit. That is all very well. Is there no way, though, that part of the $10.8 budget surplus could go to health? Could it not go to the sick via the provinces?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very passionate about health issues and I can understand that. But is she not forgetting that, despite cuts to social programs, Quebec has clearly benefited from a $1 billion increase in equalization payments and that Quebec is currently getting $3.9 billion in equalization payments?

Quebec has also benefited from very low interest rates. So, I think Quebec is still ahead and still has a lot to gain from being part of Canada. It has a lot more flexibility to work with its social programs because of the $3.9 billion in equalization payments that are being paid by Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, since they are not getting any equalization.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is in no position to lecture anyone, because she was health minister when the first cuts were made throughout Canada. She was health minister when the Canada social transfer was slashed. She is really in no position to lecture anyone.

I would like to remind her that Quebec's share is 25% compared to the rest of Canada. We pay $32 billion in taxes and we do not get our fair share back. Since the Liberals came into office, we have lost $7 billion in social transfers. Can members imagine what the people of Quebec could have done with that $7 billion?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and enthusiastic about taking part in today's debate on the motion moved by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

It is not the first time that I speak, but this issue is of particular concern to me as the member for Québec. There is a high rate of unemployment and people on welfare in my riding. Since 1993, I have taken part in all the debates on the cuts made to the Canada social transfer.

Today's motion deals with an important issue for Canadians and Quebeckers. Let me briefly remind the House of what it says. The motion asks that this House endorse the provincial consensus reached in Saskatoon on August 7, 1998, to restore the Canada health and social transfer and to give back the contributions to front-line health care services, starting with a payment of at least $2 billion, given that the federal government has accumulated a surplus of $10.4 billion for the first six months of the 1998-99 fiscal year.

This debate is the logical result of consultations. On September 16 and 17, we held prebudget consultations in the Quebec City region to ask what the federal government should do with budget surpluses. These prebudget consultations were held throughout Quebec, under the guidance of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. As I said, these consultations were held throughout Quebec. Hundreds of organizations representing thousands of Quebeckers came to deliver a message to the Minister of Finance regarding what should be done with budget surpluses.

To fully understand how appropriate the motion before us actually is, it is important to see how the wealthy owner of Canada Steamship Lines—I am of course referring to the Minister of Finance—managed to generate surpluses which he is still trying to hide. There is no way to find out whether there are surpluses. The minister's account always shows a zero balance. No deficit, no surplus. The account always has a zero balance.

The federal government forces the provinces to do the dirty job of implementing cuts to health, education and income security. The government shifts the blame for the cuts to the provinces by secretly digging into the pockets of the most disadvantaged, because it will not index taxation, and by misappropriating money that belongs to the workers and spending it as it pleases, in an obvious effort to gain visibility.

How does the Liberal government misappropriate the workers' money? I will try to explain.

While this debate deals with the Canada health and social transfer, we cannot overlook the fact that nearly half of the $10.4 billion surplus accumulated in the first six months of the current fiscal year came from the employment insurance fund. Recipients get half of all contributions they pay. They pay twice as much in contributions as they receive in benefits.

The government had no problems taking $5 billion out of the employment insurance fund surplus. The figures speak for themselves. What are they telling us? They are telling us that contribution rates are too high, which hampers job creation.

The human resources development minister's latest report correctly states at page 47 that only 43% of those who contribute to the plan benefit from it.

Figures do not tell us about the human cost. But when we look at these figures, we realize there must be people hurting somewhere. Women were the hardest hit by the tighter EI requirements imposed by this Liberal government that turns its back on them and uses contributions to hide its incompetence.

I will give you an example of this government's bad faith. As a member of the human resources development committee, I am embarrassed by what happened just yesterday, when we were denied permission to consider as a priority the impact of the new EI provisions. Yesterday, all opposition members on the committee walked out, saying “Have your own private debate”.

We have not been allowed to give precedence to the impact of the new EI legislation. That is embarrassing to me. Where are we to debate these issues, if we not even allowed to do so in the human resources development committee?

We had proposed a motion for the consideration of this legislation we think is unfair. When we see the government getting $5 billion from EI premiums paid by people who are not receiving what they deserve, we have the right to call for a debate. I am proud to take part in this debate today to express my outrage.

Several people have referred to the hijacking of the EI fund. I can quote the president of Solidarité rurale, Jacques Proulx, who appeared as a witness during prebudget consultations in my riding. He said “It is immoral to use the EI fund surplus to eliminate the deficit. That money does not even belong to the government”. I would remind the House that the government does not contribute to that fund.

Others did not hesitate to call it highway robbery. I know you do not like it, Mr. Speaker, when we use the word robbery here in the House, but we are not the ones who said it, it is the witnesses who came to the hearings. They said the management of the EI fund by the Liberals was the injustice of the century.

It is true that cabinet's insensitivity is no surprise to anyone, considering that the person who runs the government has implemented a reform whereby six people out of ten are not eligible for benefits.

We can now see why the Prime Minister does not understand the programs in Quebec; he does not even understand his own programs. When asked a question in the House about who paid premiums, the Prime Minister thought he himself paid premiums. He cannot answer a question from the Bloc Quebecois asking if it is fair to take money from the EI fund to reduce taxes. With a Prime minister who believes he contributes to employment insurance when we know full well that neither members nor ministers do, we are wondering who is governing us.

The Canada health and social transfer is a shameful scam; since 1993, the Liberals have cut $10.4 billion in transfer payments. By 2003-04, the cuts will amount to $42 billion. Can you imagine what the provinces could have done with $42 billion in health care? Can you imagine what it would mean to have an extra $42 billion in their pockets? In Quebec this translates into $590 million for 1997-98.

In the Quebec City area alone, they need $117 million. To give you an idea of what this means, it costs $103.5 million to run the Robert-Giffard hospital. With $117 million one could run a whole hospital. It takes $76.4 million to run the Hôtel-Dieu in Quebec City and $72.1 million to run the Laval University hospital. This amount represents what it takes to run two hospitals.

I do not know to which hospital this money could have gone, but at least the government could have helped by giving a little bit more so that hospitals could offer better services.

It is all very well to say from your ivory tower that everything is hunky dory, that we live in the best country in the world, but when you cut $42 billion from the Canada social transfer, one thing is clear: people suffer.

Quebec is not the only province where things are rough. Everywhere else in Canada health care is in crisis. There is not enough money. The government should stop parading around with its $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund—money that will only increase its visibility—and start giving the money back to the provinces.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, let us not exaggerate. We made cuts because we had to put our fiscal house in order, and we did. It was not easy, we did not enjoy doing that, but we did.

The member spoke about what she could do with $100 million for the hospitals in Quebec City. But when equalization payments go up, that is money paid to Quebec on top of all other programs and transfers. Equalization payments went up by $1 billion. That is several times $100 million.

Perhaps the member should go back to Mr. Bouchard and say “You receive $3.9 billion in equalization payments. That is more than any other province”. She should ask him what he does with that money. He can spend it on hospitals if he so chooses. We do not impose any conditions. So I hope he will at least be honest with Quebeckers and tell them how they benefit from equalization payments.

Moreover, and this bears repeating, interest rates have gone down and provincial governments have saved millions of dollars in interest payments on their debt. They are forgetting all of that. They must always remember that there is more than one department and that the Government of Canada wants to work with the provinces. We are doing everything possible to work with the provinces. We transfer significant amounts of money to them, and I hope the member will recognize that.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no matter the numbers quoted this morning, as I said before, behind these numbers there are real people who are suffering. This is the reality in health care across Canada. Stop telling me about a miserly $1 billion when we know the cuts in Quebec amount to $7 billion. Seven billion dollars is several times $1 billion.

Behind seemingly generous numbers lies the fact that in some areas the cuts amount to 10 or 15 times that. If I were her I would be ashamed; she is the minister who kept on cutting instead of preventing the cuts in health care. She said she brought finances back to health. How dare she use such a word? She made finances healthy again in the area of health care. Now I have heard everything.

I too am going to quote a number to support my arguments. Total health care cuts in Quebec amount to 30%, even though we represent only 24.5% of the Canadian population. Therefore I believe Quebec, which pays $32 billion in taxes, does not get its fair share.

This morning's debate is also about the duplications this government intends to create, as is the case with the millennium scholarships. What the government wants to do is interfere with provincial areas of jurisdiction. Quebec does quite well in several areas, we do not need two different structures.

Over 1,000 students in Quebec will not be able to get a $3,000 scholarship because of duplication. This is what we are fighting against.

The government should be fair and equitable and give the existing surplus back to the provinces, because our health care system needs it.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

I have been listening attentively and I am impressed by the verve and passion with which members opposite have been expressing their views in defence of provincial jurisdictions, i.e., the authority of bureaucracies to administer a particular program. I thought that the motion had as its intention an indication of what our responsibilities might be toward Canadians and toward their health needs.

The last time I looked, not to be too sarcastic, probably all Canadians were not looking at their passports in a moment of illness. They were not looking for which jurisdiction was responsible for the delivery of a system when they were in need. Most Canadians when they are ill are looking for a very responsible, competent and compassionate approach to easing their pain, their malady, their illness.

It is rather troubling as a Canadian because in this House all members are supposed to be representing the interests of all Canadians and yet we seem to have this intense desire to ensure that a jurisdiction is the most important element to defend. That was not what I thought the mandate of a member of parliament might be. It was to put forward programs that were to be to the advantage of all Canadians, all those who make a contribution to this country both fiscally and civic. Whether it be in economic or community terms we are all in this place together.

Having said that partly as an element of frustration for a member of parliament who is looking forward to having input in policy that will translate itself into programs that have universal application in the sense that every Canadian can access this service no matter where they might live, no matter where they might find themselves in the course of travels in this country, I want to refresh some views for members and perhaps change the debate slightly from where it appears to be going.

That ministers at the provincial level asked only last fall that the federal government put more money into health care than what was currently there and taking this statement as essential gospel for what must happen is a very selective way of looking at the politics and the pragmatics of the decisions that led to the CHST.

When the program that combined EPF and CAP and other equalization benefits was put together for the health and social transfer the government was responding to a request by provincial ministers. Notwithstanding the partisanship in the House, those provincial ministers came from all provinces as well as the territories. They asked the government for one lump sum transfer.

Why did they want that? They wanted, to use their demands, flexibility in the usage of the transfers from the federal authority to provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

What they wanted was predictability in funding. They wanted stability in funding. They wanted to co-operate in areas in order to reduce overlap because the overlap was to translate itself into efficiencies both in delivery of services and obviously in cost.

I take pains to point out that this was a request by the provinces, including the provinces of the two members who just spoke. The provinces received a commitment that there would be no less than $11 billion in cash transfers. That amount has since been increased to $12.5 billion. In addition, the provinces were to receive tax points which in an expanding economy have translated into increased income and increased revenue. For that the provinces were extremely happy.

Has the politics changed since the time when the provinces made those requests? Perhaps. Have the obligations of those provinces that were partners in coming to this decision changed with respect to the demands of Canadian citizens anywhere and everywhere? No.

Is it possible we are engaged in a very partisan political discussion regarding whose responsibility it is once an agreement has been put in place to deliver services that were required and identified?

Surely every reasonable member in the House would say yes, we have struck this deal, we abided by your requests, please do your job. Harvard University studies, studies done in the United States and studies virtually everywhere in the world have indicated that the problems in health care are not only evidenced in Canada. The problems are evidenced everywhere. But a major reason for the problems is administration, not funding.

If there is a person in this House who would say that they cannot do a little more with a few dollars more, I would like to find that individual. But there are more people in this place who say we are not underfunding our needs when there is some $72 billion annually spent on health care.

Where does the federal government fit in? It has been attacked by opposition members who are using partisan tactics in order to diminish the responsibility that the Government of Canada has assumed for itself and which it is divesting, I think, rather reasonably and vigorously.

Opposition members have neglected to point out that in addition to the lump sum payment going to the provinces every single year, the Government of Canada instituted an innovation and research program that would revitalize medical science research at universities and hospitals to the tune of $800 million. That is not chicken feed with all due respect to those in the agricultural sector.

There is over $150 million in the transition fund that applies to every single Canadian no matter where they live. That money is being used for innovative and pilot studies in all provinces and territories. We have looked as well at increased funding to the medical research council. All those moneys go toward health care.

If health care is to be defined in terms of all that leads up to the delivery of a system, all that is required in order to make a system functional, then I think we owe it to ourselves in the House to be reasonable and to be objective even though we are trying to be partisan when we tell Canadians just what the state of the health care system is.

It may be sexy to find out about one item that appears to be illustrative of what is wrong with the system but let us also be honest in our debate. Let us give credit where credit is due and assign responsibility where responsibility is due. If we want total responsibility for the administration of a system, do not offload that responsibility or shirk our responsibility by saying it is the fault of those who abided by an agreement we demanded.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. He talked about the partisanship of this debate. The opposition parties are for the most part challenging the government about its priorities in spending cuts.

It seems the federal government spending cuts have been made mostly off the backs of the provinces. Then the government comes back by saying it has given the provinces some tax credits. Now that the federal government has a surplus it says that the provincial governments can tax their citizens instead of the federal government doing so. This leads to a serious trickle down effect.

I will bring some examples from my constituency to the debate. I would like government members to listen to what is happening to some of the rural areas in Canada. A mother who went to the hospital to give birth told me there was one nurse there who covered the labour and delivery rooms and looked after the nursery. I have heard from people who have had to go to four doctors in the last year because the first three doctors had left the community. I have heard doctors say that they have come to the country at the request of boards but that when their temporary work permits expire they cannot reinstate them. The immigration department will not open the door for them because there is not a slot for more doctors. These are the consequences of such cuts to individual grassroots Canadians in rural constituencies—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some points that would concern all of us. He has reinforced what I said a moment ago, that the licensing and certification of doctors through colleges of physicians and doctors is everywhere in the provinces. If he is concerned about a restrictive area, that issue should be taken up through the provinces with those colleges.

I am one of those who say we should get more doctors into the small towns and rural Canada. To suggest that will be done overnight because the federal government will be increasing its funding through transfers to provinces is oversimplifying the situation completely.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for the member to dismiss the concerns we have raised today does a great disservice to the thousands of people in Canada who are very concerned about the care they are receiving or who are very worried about whether care will be there when they need it. It is not a partisan request for doctors, nurses, hospitals and health care organizations to come forward with one voice to say that this government owes it to our health care system to put $2.5 billion immediately back into it. That request is truly in the interest of preserving something we all believe in.

Does the member acknowledge that Canada is now 17th among 28 industrialized OECD nations in terms of public spending on health care? Does he acknowledge the federal share of that public spending is now down to 14%, if we are lucky? Is he ready to acknowledge a report of the Canadian Institute for Health Information covered by the media today which stated that private sector health spending now represents over 30% of this country's total health bill?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have debated this kind of issue in the past. I do not mean to diminish some of the inputs because I have as much concern for those who are ill or suffering or making demands on the system.

As I said earlier on, from the federal point of view we are in the position where we are funding. Those who are delivering the system and administering the system are at the provincial level. This is one of those disconnects where we are being held accountable for something for which we have no responsibility.

With respect to some of the figures the hon. member gave, the last figures I looked at a couple of months ago put us in third place among the OECD countries in public contribution to spending on health. We are marginally behind Germany and France and in fact we are ahead of the United States.

Most academics and researchers in the area would say that Canada is very much in line with virtually all the other major industrialized nations in the world, in terms of—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am also very glad to support the motion before the House of Commons today.

As we all know, our social programs reflect a vision of Canada that is ambitious and very dear to us, a vision of Canada as a world leader in accessible health care, knowledge, innovation and compassion, as well as a vision of a nation providing its citizens with a sense of security and many opportunities.

We hold tight to this vision, not because of our political affiliation, but because we are Canadian. The people of Canada do not expect anything less.

Although Canada's social programs are the envy of the whole world, we do not want to rest on our laurels. It is in this spirit that this government has constantly and thoroughly tried to ensure that our social programs keep improving, meeting the needs and reflecting the priorities of Canadians, wherever they live.

All of the provinces and territories share this commitment and I am sure that the current negotiations on social union will benefit everyone. Our social safety net relies on co-operation between the various levels of government.

The health care system in Canada is constantly under pressure to keep pace with technological developments. The demographic situation also exerts some pressure. In fact, the health care system has to deal with a population that is growing as well as ageing. So, Canadians have every right to be concerned about the preservation of the quality of our health care system and of its accessibility.

Health care has to be the main area in which we invest next. I for one believe in the future of the health care system in Canada. Some will ask me how I can be so optimistic given the huge pressure being exerted. Well, it is because I have seen how this government has managed to meet other huge challenges.

I remind the House that in 1994 the deficit was $45 billion. In 1998, we have a balanced budget. Also in 1994, the accumulated debt was over $500 billion and still rising. Today, in 1998, the debt to GDP ratio has started to go down for the first time.

Quite simply, we were faced with a debt and a deficit of catastrophic proportions. We had to deal with this problem immediately. I do not mean to sound alarmist, I am merely stating the facts.

During the first years, the government implemented unprecedented restraint measures. We reviewed all programs and activities; we reduced the size of the public service; we consolidated programs; we privatized; we commercialized; we moved heaven and earth.

These measures were not simply emergency measures to limit spending. They were fundamental structural changes stemming from a comprehensive reorganization of our country's priorities.

Our restraint measures were aimed essentially at program spending. But we had to look at the whole picture. Federal spending on transfers to the provinces account for about one-fifth of our total spending. Accordingly, we could not ignore this sector in our efforts to save money.

It must be remembered, however, that the federal government gave itself a larger share of the burden of budget cuts than it did the provinces.

The results of this fiscal discipline are eloquent. The circumstance surrounding the debate on Canada's finances are now much more favourable than they have been in recent decades. The budget is balanced, and the debt to GDP ratio continues to drop.

This does not mean that we are protected from the financial market fluctuations that have hit the world's economies. These problems have slowed the growth of our own economy and have resulted in a drop in the value of our currency.

How can we be so confident? Because of the financial adjustment we struggled to achieve. In the last fiscal year, we were the first central government in all of the G-7 countries to present a balanced budget.

This adjustment, in which the reductions imposed on the provinces played a real role, I will admit, is not an abstract accounting concept. It means that Canada has not been in such a good position to deal with world economic fluctuations in decades.

I do not want to start an endless debate on what our situation might be exactly, had we not cut spending so categorically. I can, however, give a brief summary: our dollar would dropped further; interest rates would be much higher; thousands more would be unemployed; we would be paying billions of dollars more in debt servicing.

Fortunately for us, these issues are theoretical. Suffice it to say that, in the short term, we had to tighten our belts, not only to be long term winners, but in order to survive.

As to the present, the questions facing us involve striking a balance among funding social programs, cutting taxes and reducing the burden of the debt. We have clearly established that health care is an absolute priority.

In fact, once a balanced budget was within reach, we increased the minimum funding to the provinces for health under the Canada social transfer. This cash floor was increased from $11 billion to $12.5 billion annually, up to the year 2003.

This means an additional $7 billion for health care, for each province and not, as Bloc Quebecois members claim, $7 billion just for Quebec.

But the cash floor is not the only component of the Canada social transfer for health and social programs. There is also the transfer of tax points, which Bloc Quebecois members never talk about. When the economy is growing, as it is now, the value of these tax points increases, as has been the case for the past several years.

In 1993-94, the value of the tax points transferred amounted to $10.1 billion. This year, it will be around $13.3 billion. If we add that amount to the cash floor of $12.5 billion, we get a total of $25.8 billion. These are facts.

Moreover, increasing the cash floor was not the only spending commitment made to improve the situation in the health care sector. Indeed, in our last three budgets, we have allocated more money to new initiatives in that area.

Lower interest rates also result in reduced debt servicing costs for the provinces. Based on our estimation, lower interest rates have resulted in a $1.8 billion dividend for the provinces, during the two-year period from January 1995 to December 1996.

Therefore, provinces are also benefiting, since they collect more taxes as more Canadians are working, not to mention lower social assistance costs.

Even Canadians who are young, healthy, educated and employed benefit from the social security network.

Today I started by reminding the House that the Canadian social security system was build through co-operation among the various levels of government. It is this tradition of co-operation that will ensure the survival of our social programs.

We really want to do our share. As the finance minister said when he delivered his economic and fiscal update to the Standing Committee on Finance, and I quote: “We welcome the assurances of Canada's premiers that any additional federal funding provided to the provinces for health care will indeed be used for that purpose. We share strongly their desire—and the desire of all Canadians—to have confidence in the health care system restored, and we want to work in partnership with the provinces to secure that confidence”.

By putting its fiscal house in order, this government made sure it would continue to play a role in the building of a strong and prosperous country able to educate its young people. This is our goal.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to start with I would like to congratulate the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges for supporting the motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois, which demands that the federal government invest $2 billion in the Canadian health care system.

The member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges is consistent with the former MPP, former Quebec premier and provincial member for Vaudreuil, Daniel Johnson, who under Mr. Jacques Parizeau's government, had condemned in the National Assembly the federal cuts, especially cuts to the health and education transfer payments.

Would the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges agree that if today we are debating a motion on health care moved by the Bloc Quebecois it is as a result of federal cuts mainly in transfer payments to the provinces? These cuts have had an impact on the health care sector for instance. Not to mention cuts in employment insurance, which have hurt workers and the unemployed.