Debates of Feb. 4th, 1999

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have no doubt the point raised by the hon. member for Bourassa is a point of view. I may get a little distracted at times during debates, but nevertheless I would say that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has the floor.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admit I should not have used that word. Sometimes, one gets wound up.

The words I had in mind were “heck of a problem”, rather than “ helluva problem ”.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Ah, that's better.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

My grandmother also used to tell me the same thing when I used that kind of language.

In other words, when one has the honour of representing Quebeckers, as my colleague does and we do, we have to report the truth. The problem we had during the last 30 years, before the Bloc Quebecois came on the federal scene, is that there was a double legitimacy: there were those in the National Assembly in Quebec City who said one thing, quite often the right thing, and there were the federalist representatives of Quebec in the House of Commons who said the opposite because they had to follow Mr. Trudeau, because there had to be a balance between the east and the west, and so on. There were often contradictions between what was said here in Ottawa and what was said in Quebec City.

For once, one can say that the Bloc Quebecois here is defending the true interests of Quebeckers, interests that are based on a consensus. I challenge the member to say that his position on the millennium scholarships fund reflects the position of Quebeckers. We debated the issue for weeks, there were representations from all the legitimate representatives of Quebec, namely organisations that really count in Quebec, students federations, workers unions and business people. They are all against the millennium scholarships.

The member should stop saying things that are not correct. It is not true that the millennium scholarships fund will help needy students. This fund will actually be useful to an elite because the scholarships will be granted on the basis of merit, not need.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather ironic, interesting to say the least, to listen to someone from the Bloc quoting our Constitution. It is somewhat ironic to listen to someone who would destroy the Constitution, who would simply tear the country apart to lecture the government on the interpretation that we have to live by the rules that that member would like to destroy. The irony is palpable when we listen to that kind of debate.

What we are talking about here is respect for a Constitution that lays out partnerships and does not take an issue as important as health care—and I will get to the Reform Party in a minute.

[An hon. member]

We thought you would.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to disappoint them now.

It really is ironic. Maybe the Bloc would help me out a little. I was originally scheduled to be in my French class between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. The whip's office called and asked me if I would like to speak on the opposition day motion. I said I sure would. Maybe the Bloc can replace my French lesson by helping me with a few words in French.

How does one say “myopic” in French? How does one say “double standard” in French? How does one say “parochialism” in French? How does one say “provincialism” in French? How does one say “hypocrisy” in French?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Bloc could help me by giving me a brief French lesson on those five words. I would replace those five words with one word in English, which would be Bloc. The Bloc would meet the standard and the definition of all those words with regard to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis today.

While the motion put forward by the Bloc meets the standard or test of all five of those words, it does not address five other issues. Those are the issues that fundamentally are the cornerstones of our health care system.

The other day I was taken to task by some of the hon. members opposite when I said in this place that Canadians are fundamentally proud of their health care system. Of course they realize there are problems, just as I realized when I and a member of my family arrived at the Mississauga hospital by ambulance a couple of weeks ago.

They realize there are problems when there are three patients in beds in the hall with ambulance attendants required to wait with those patients until they can be transferred to a specific bed in a room. We are tying up three crews of ambulance workers. We are making people who are in some cases extremely ill sit in a public hallway on a gurney or a bed waiting to get proper attention. There is something wrong with that. This government knows that. The Canadian people know that.

Would members opposite expect us to sit back and allow a provincial government, such as in my province, to hand back a 30% tax cut which benefits the wealthiest members of society in Ontario, while it cuts health care? They can blame the federal government if they wish. And politically, heading toward an election this spring or next fall, I am not at all surprised that they would do that.

The reality is that the partnership spoken about in our Constitution, the partnership that is being negotiated as we speak in this place, the social union that is being negotiated is all about establishing some fundamental principles. This party and this government believe in those principles and will never transfer any kind of responsibility or ability to the provincial level to negate those principles of public administration, accessibility, portability, universality and comprehensiveness. That is the foundation of medicare.

I find it truly amusing when I listen to the member from the Bloc claiming that she would like to see this party sitting in opposition. I would like her to tell us what that solution would be. Would she like the Reform Party with its two tier system to be in charge of health care in this country? I highly doubt it. She would recognize that representing a party that is based on provincial values only that the Bloc is incapable of forming a national government. Obviously it goes without saying the Bloc would have some slight difficulty electing members outside la belle province.

Would the member recognize that the Tory government under Brian Mulroney left a legacy of $42 billion which required the serious attention by this government to the deficit and that took every ounce of effort and courage by the Canadian people to eliminate it? Would she like to see the party of Brian Mulroney back in power? Or is she naive enough to believe it would be the New Democrats?

The New Democrats had their crack at governing in the province of Ontario at a time when I was in opposition to Mr. Rae and company. They had their crack at showing the country what they could do with a reasonably sized government, and the damage that occurred under their stewardship. Would she really believe the New Democrats are going to form a national government?

We do not hear the other side of the issue. She would like to stand and say get rid of the Liberals. I understand that. That is the opposition. That is the best thought she has had today. She does not know what to counter it with or what to replace it with.

The reality is this federation works. In spite of the utterances of members of the Bloc, in spite of the fact that they would destroy this country, it works because the federal government is committed to working with the provinces, with the private sector, with the local community. That is very important.

I assume that by this motion the Bloc would have us abdicate our responsibility. This is not about respect. It is about abdication.

There is a section of the federal government called the federal health protection program. Would the Bloc wish that this government should simply walk away from that program? It is a program that monitors disease and tells us about the best ways to prevent or control illness or injury for Canadians throughout the country. They prevent and they respond to public health emergencies.

There was a tragedy in my own community not long ago when a teenager came down with a case of meningitis and died. Imagine the panic, the sense of fear in the community, the demands to the regional municipality, not to the province and not to the federal government, but to the community's medical officer to immunize everyone in the community. We have to balance that fear. Is it realistic? It sure seems so when we have a teenager at home who might contract that deadly disease.

The federal government through the federal health protection program can work with local health delivery agencies to deal with that kind of emergency. I do not think what the Bloc is talking about takes into account the extremely important work that is done in working with local health authorities who really deliver it on the ground.

I know I have a just a few seconds left so in closing, I want to say that this could be a historic day. As the Prime Minister meets with the premiers it is my hope on behalf of my constituents and all Canadians that calm will prevail, that some intelligence will come around that table to understand that the federal government cannot do what the Bloc would like us to do which is to wash our hands of our responsibility in health care.

This government will, I believe on the 16th, make a major commitment to the Canadian people in the area of health care funding. Canadians can continue to feel confident that Canada has one of the finest health care systems in the world, a system which is portable, accessible and affordable for all.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make some comments in order to set the record straight in terms of the fiscal leadership of this country.

The government claims that all of a sudden it balanced the budget. I point out quite clearly that it was Canadians who sacrificed themselves in paying high taxes who balanced the budget.

I would also like to point out that it was the Progressive Conservative government of Ralph Klein that actually led this country with respect to fiscal responsibility and debt reduction. Things like the balanced budget legislation of the Progressive Conservative government of Gary Filmon actually set that road as well.

I will say one thing quite clearly, nobody would have balanced a budget, including this finance minister, if Mike Harris and Ernie Eves did not actually get the economic engine of this country going again, that being Ontario.

I would also like to point out that because of a tax cut of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, the province of Ontario is taking in more money, not less money, so that the province of Ontario has a chance to reinvest in health care. They are going to be giving some money back in health care. I would point out that by giving some of the money back to health care, I would equate that with taking away a loaf and only giving back a slice.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member cares to check the record in Hansard , he would see that my comments did reflect that it was the courage, the dedication and the hard work of Canadians that allowed us to balance the budget.

He wants to give great credit to Mike and Ernie, the golf pros. He wants to tell us that they figured out how to solve this. On the one hand he says to give the credit to the Canadian people, but on the other hand he wants to ignore the hard work of the people of Ontario. It was through the sacrifices of the citizens of Ontario, as a result of Mike the Knife and Ernie the Golfer who took the money out of the health care system in the province of Ontario, and that member should understand that.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was inadvertent, but the member for Mississauga West made a grave error in his comments. He said specifically that in Ontario there were cuts to medicare.

I would like him to stand in his place and admit that between 1995 and today the money for medicare has gone up by $1.5 billion. During that period the federal cuts to health for Ontario totalled $3 billion. Maybe he would admit that. I am sure it was an inadvertent mistake.

Ontarians did in fact recognize health was so important that the funding for health in Ontario went up even while they cut taxes. I am certain it was inadvertent. I would like to give him the opportunity to right this wrong.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the member some sense of confidence that very little of what I say is inadvertent. I can assure him of that.

I also want to make a point with reference to the comment that it was the Conservative government of Ralph Klein that did these wonderful things.

This is the same government in the province of Alberta that imposed user fees on its own citizens until this government said no, we will not transfer the money to you. You cannot violate the terms.

With regard to the province, the member has obviously been watching the advertising machine of the Progressive Conservative Party which is filling the airwaves full of twisted untruths.

Costs have been driven through the roof, no question about that. This requires more money in health care. This government is committed to that and the member, in spite of his rhetoric, will see that commitment very soon.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a short and straightforward question.

Does he find it normal that the Bloc Quebecois, a sovereignist party from Quebec, should be the one to defend the Canadian Constitution and provincial jurisdictions?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly the irony of all ironies that the Bloc would find itself supposedly in its somewhat twisted myopic view of this situation to be the defender of the Canadian Constitution. It leaves me almost speechless, something that does not happen to me very often.

The reality is what the Bloc is doing is playing parochial, provincial politics, nothing more. As the premiers talk with the Prime Minister, it is deathly afraid that they might come out of that meeting with some kind of agreement which the people of Quebec will say is a good agreement, that they might actually make a deal that they will be able to go back to the people of Quebec and indeed all people in Canada and say we have done what is right for all Canadians.

That is what the Bloc does not like. Anything its members can do to undermine the credibility of this place, the credibility of this great country, is what they are about. It is truly shameful.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a motion on health care that has everything to do with jurisdiction.

The Bloc Quebecois does not want the federal government to touch anything that is under provincial jurisdiction, and I agree with this. It also says that the budget surplus should not be used in the area of health care. I think this motion shows the huge gap that separates the Liberal Party from the Bloc Quebecois.

Jurisdictional issues are important indeed. There is no denying that. We have a constitution that must be respected. However, we should make it our top priority to explore every possible avenue to find common solutions to problems in areas of shared jurisdiction, as is the case here.

In fact, it is clear that the federal government has jurisdiction over everything that has to do with social programs. Under the Canada Health Act, the federal government is responsible for the application of the five basic principles adopted by this House.

I am amazed that we are here today, talking once again about the Constitution and whether or not surpluses should go to health care, instead of looking together for common solutions to help patients who are waiting days and days for a hospital bed.

My vision of public service is that people and their concerns are much more important than the endless jurisdictional quarrels that are the delight of the Bloc, that are its raison d'être, that are the reason why these people defending Quebec's sovereignty come to Ottawa. They love discussing the Constitution and jurisdictional matters, instead of talking about—

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

If we relied on people such as you, Quebec would not be defended.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Obviously it still bothers them. They are yelling. They yell because it bothers them. All they like to discuss about is the Constitution, jurisdictional quarrels, and they can talk about that endlessly, day in, day out.

Yet, what concerns us all, wherever we live, and this is the fundamental reason why we are in politics, are people and their social and economic concerns. Of all areas, none is as important as health care. While we are debating this motion in the great comfort of this House, the irony is that hundreds of people across Canada, whether in Quebec or elsewhere, are waiting on stretchers, sometimes for entire days and entire nights, to receive medical treatment. This is the reality.

Many patients even wait months before being admitted to a hospital. Some of them, and newspapers have documented such incidents repeatedly, even die while waiting for a chance to be hospitalized and to receive some care. Meanwhile, in the great comfort of this House, in our nice suits and ties and nice dresses, we discuss whether the Constitution should be protected for Quebec.

In the great comfort of this House are we discussing how the federal government and provincial governments alike should give us a more effective, more human health care system? Are we discussing how we can get rid of the long lines outside our hospitals? Are we discussing how so many hundreds of patients are waiting to reach the hospital, waiting to be served, sometimes months at a time?

I know. I have three doctors in my family, two of whom work in Quebec. We have a shortage of anaesthetists. We have a chronic shortage of radiologists. Hospital emergency care is in dire straits in so many provinces.

Are we discussing how we are to better implement the five great principles of health care, one of which is reasonable access to hospitals?

This is why this budget will be geared to health care. This is why the federal government has decided, because it is the overwhelming desire of Canadians, to put jurisdictional quarrels aside and say we have to get into matters that affect people first and stop the silly quarrels where we spend days on end discussing whether this is provincial, that is federal and this is municipal.

Canadians are asking us to quit quarrelling and get together and decide together that we will make these systems work better for all of us. This imperative is even louder in the case of patients and people who are sick.

Canadians are telling us in poll after poll that they are fed up with our quarrels and our nonsense. They are fed up when the Bloc Quebecois stands up in the House day in and day out and starts talking about the sovereignty of Quebec.

I heard the member from Saint-Hyacinthe say a few minutes ago that the solution to the problem is look after our own things. That will solve everything.

The last Quebec minister who tried before the election to solve problems one at a time, Minister Rochon, made such a mess that he had to be pushed aside by the Premier of Quebec. He no longer is the health minister. He was the great “problem solver”, but he made such a mess that he had to be pushed aside. Now they say “When we run our own show, everything will be fine”.

In an editorial published the other day, the Globe and Mail mentioned that many reports concluded that it was not purely a question of money, that given the money that exists globally in the Canadian health care system, if our system was more efficient and better organized and controlled, then we would be in a position to offer Canadians a much better health care system than the one we have now.

Do we discuss ways to deal with all these problems together, to bring about common solutions to crises that call for common solutions? No. What do we do? We talk about the Constitution, about petty squabbles, once again. And things are not about to change because now we do not only have the Bloc Quebecois to deal with. We also have the united alternative, which is going to solve all of our problems.

The Reform Party, completely to the right of the spectrum, that believes in a free economy and a double tier system of medicare, is joining in with the Bloc Quebecois that wants a sovereign Quebec.

How will they sew their mishmash together? How will they form this so-called united alternative? It is really wonderful. They are joining all these motions together. The Bloc Quebecois presents a motion and Reform joins in. Reform presents a motion and the Bloc Quebecois joins in. Meanwhile people are waiting for solutions. They are waiting for beds in hospitals. They are waiting for access to hospitals. They are waiting for the federal government to make this truly a health budget. We will do this despite the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party.

This budget will put the accent on health care and it will be a positive budget which Canadians will welcome.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe what I have just heard. My colleague opposite was lamenting the fate of sick people waiting on stretchers. He has the gall to do that after his government has made deep cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, which had no choice but to cut services. He dares to cry over their fate. That takes the cake.

But that is not what I want to talk about. Let me get back to the issue at hand. We are being presented with a motion requesting three things. Here is the first one:

That this House urges the government to respect provincial jurisdiction over health care management—

In other words, we want the government to uphold the Constitution, which is its sworn duty. Here is the second request:

—to increase transfers to the provinces for health care unconditionally—

This means the government should restore the level of transfer payments to the provinces. With this second point, we are asking the federal government to be honest. Here is the third point:

—to avoid using budget surpluses to encroach upon the health care field.

With that third point, we are urging the federal government to abide by the Constitution.

I am flabbergasted that we should even need to move such a motion, as if it were not just natural for a government to be honest and uphold the Constitution, which is its sworn duty. I am surprised that any political party in the House should have to move a motion urging the government to be honest and uphold the Constitution.

This really takes the cake. I am really anxious to see how our motion will fare with members opposite. If they oppose a motion urging the government to be honest and uphold the Constitution, our system is even more rotten than I thought.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois has as a premise that his motion is true in every respect. He takes for granted that the federal government does not respect jurisdictions in the area of health, which is completely false.

The second premise is that the cuts in transfer payments is the sole cause of problems affecting health care in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Reports show that collectively speaking there is enough money in all the provinces, including Quebec, to have a system which is more efficient than it currently is.

The answer is clear. One only has to look at the mess—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have let the hon. member speak so I will ask him to keep his cool.

One only has to look at the mess created by Minister Rochon. He made such a mess of things that he almost lost his seat. He was elected by a very narrow margin. The first thing the premier did was to push him aside immediately. If that minister had done such a good job, if he had used the money he had to make the system efficient, I think he would have kept his job.

This is not the fault of the federal government. Instead of being happy that the federal government talks about a budget which will put more money in health care, they prefer to conjure up another red herring by claiming that the government should not invest in health because it is a provincial jurisdiction. Money is the only thing they are interested in.

We only want the people to know that we will transfer their money, the money of the people of British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta, who do not benefit from equalization payments but still send a lot of money to Quebec on top of what it already spends.

What we want is a way to make sure that the equalization money transferred to the provinces by the federal government for health care will actually be used for health care. It seems quite straightforward. If the money is intended for health care, I see no reason why the provinces should object.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was immune to the drivel coming from the government side, but I cannot believe what I am listening to today.

What they do not seem to understand is that the problem remains the same. The federal government is using its spending powers to get into provincial jurisdiction.

Yesterday in debate the Minister of Justice said that we should respect our Constitution. Maybe the Liberals should read it. Maybe they would find out that under section 92.7 it is very clear that health is a provincial jurisdiction.

They can talk about quibbling over jurisdiction, but it is quite clear to me that most of the problems we have had in this country were caused by a breakdown in the partnership between the federal government and the provinces.

The member for Mississauga West talked about working with the provinces. I do not know how to say it politely, but that is a pile. There is no indication that this federal government is working with the provinces.

Talking with the provinces was another reference made by the member for Mississauga West. The Prime Minister is not talking with the premiers, he is talking to the premiers. He is giving them an alternative: “Agree with my position or you don't get any money”.

It really ticks me off when it is all over an issue of the federal government wanting to maintain control over health care. It is the problem. Members across the way are blaming the provinces when their government has cut $16.5 billion since 1995. Yet they have the audacity to blame the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. I do not know how they can possibly think that Canadians are going to believe it is somebody else who cut $16.5 billion from transfer payments to the provinces.

Yes, the Liberals brought in national health care. Yes, they are responsible for it. However, at that time they promised 50% funding. What happened? Now they are funding it at 11%. It is no wonder there is a crisis in this country. To say that they want to be in control of health care is like putting the fox in charge of security in the chicken coop.

They want a report card for the provinces. That is a bloody joke. Here they are—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I know the debate is very lively this afternoon and I know the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley would not want to use words that are at least borderline if not downright out of order. I would encourage her to refrain from using that word. I know it has been ruled out of order before and I know it has been allowed on other occasions. However, given the temper of the House and the rather good-spirited debate that is going on today perhaps she could avoid using that word.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

I will call it a bleeding joke, Mr. Speaker.

This government cut $16.5 billion out of health care and it wants to be in charge. It gives itself a perfect rating. It is laughable.

When we talk about the feds wanting to get into big cheque policies where they will give the provinces more money if they agree to certain conditions, there is another unparliamentary word that covers that. I understand that it is actually a criminal conviction. The Prime Minister is using this threat of not receiving billions of dollars to get the premiers to agree to his conditions. It is disgusting.

It is also interesting that part of the agreement is that the federal government will get credit for spending the money and writing the cheque. Do these people not realize that it is not their money? It is the taxpayers' money, the people who pay the bills. What difference does it make where the money comes from?

I would like to know where they get off saying that money for health care is tied to a social union contract. We had promises for months from the minister sitting on the government side that there would be money for health care in the budget. We heard that commitment from this government. Now we hear “It depends”. The government is now saying that the money will only be there if the premiers agree to the Prime Minister's conditions for a social union contract.

I do not think Canadians want to hear that the Liberals are playing with health care dollars. I do not think Canadians want to hear that the federal government is holding these health care dollars over the heads of the provinces to get its way. Canadians want to hear that this government, as it has been saying for months and months, is committed to restoring funding to health care. However, that is not what we are hearing. What we are hearing is that it is conditional on the provinces bowing down to the Prime Minister of our country. Shame on the government.

The government says that opting out cannot be allowed. I think Canadians should take a really good look at what opting out means. We have the example of a province which opted out of a pension plan. That did not split up the country. It is not an issue on the street that there is a Canada pension plan and a Quebec pension plan. I do not think people really care. What is interesting is that the Canada pension plan has over $150 billion in unfunded liabilities and the Quebec pension plan has a $70 billion cash flow.

I do not think there is anything wrong with opting out of something if the provinces feel they are more able to do it. I do not understand why the other provinces do not see this opportunity to have the same kind of system as the province of Quebec has with its pension plan.

Part of the problem is egos, which politicians in this country have. I do not deny it because I have an ego myself. The government has an ego. It wants to be the biggest, it wants to be in charge, it wants to be seen as being responsible for spending the money, but it is putting our country at risk. It is putting the health of our citizens at risk.

I cannot believe that the Prime Minister and his government are so small minded that they cannot see the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that in this country we had better find a better way of working with our partners. We had better find a more open forum for discussion and debate over jurisdiction, and we had better have a better system of listening to what the issues really are.

As long as we continue the way we are going with the federal government holding the heavy hand of dollars over the heads of the provinces, with the government making provinces do things they would normally not do because they cannot refuse additional sources of funding, we will continue to have the same problems year after year. There will be a lack of trust and a lack of respect for the other partner. The partnership will not work. If this government cannot see that, then there is something terribly wrong.

I will go back to a definition of insanity that I have used over the past few days. It is the government thinking, not only on this issue but on other issues as well, that it can continue to do things the same way again and again and get a different result. It will not look at another way of doing things, nor will it respect the Constitution to which it and four provinces were signators. The Constitution clearly outlines federal and provincial jurisdictions.

Nowhere in that Constitution does it talk about health being a shared responsibility. Nowhere in 1867 was health ever considered to be a shared responsibility. If the federal government wants to get into provincial jurisdiction, then it should do so with their agreement.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the previous speaker for her excellent speech.

I also want to take this opportunity to remind the Liberal members opposite, who think that members of the Bloc Quebecois are here this morning to cry over spilled milk, that 74 Liberal members voted for the Constitution in this House in 1982, even if it was to the detriment of Quebec.

I also remind them that, in 1993, Quebeckers sent enough Bloc members to Ottawa to form the official opposition, even if we are sovereignist. The same thing happened again in 1997.

What I find the most surprising is that, in 1995, Canadians from Vancouver to Montreal came to tell us how much they love us. What I hear today is not exactly what those people told us. They came to tell us. They came to tell Quebec's members to go on because they needed us in Ottawa, since we are the only ones to speak for the unemployed and the have-nots and to promote social programs. We are the only ones to move motions like the one today to protect our health care system and ask the government to put money back into social transfers. We are the only ones to protect them regarding transfers for education.

I ask the Minister of Finance to rise and tell me what is wrong in what I said. The Minister of Finance and member for LaSalle—Émard is solely responsible for this situation, which has forced ten premiers to come to Ottawa today and get down on their knees to the Prime Minister to beg for money.

The question I want to ask the member—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member must address his questions and comments to the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, who made the speech, and not to the Minister of Finance. I invite him to do so.