House of Commons Hansard #174 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The report is in relation to chapter 16 of the auditor general's report of September 1998, on management of the social insurance number.
The report contains the committee's recommendations regarding fixing the problems that were raised by the auditor general on social insurance numbers.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the government to table a comprehensive response to this report.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 54th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Transport.
If the House gives its consent I move, seconded by the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, that the 54th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in and that the 53rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House yesterday be concurred in.
(Motions agreed to)
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of western Canadians from a variety of communities.
The petitioners are concerned about the government's lack of initiative to introduce legislation to protect Canadian fresh water. They are concerned that it has not announced any moratorium. They are worried that our trade agreements will facilitate the export of bulk water from Canada to the United States and northern Mexico.
The petitioners call on parliament to take immediate action to safeguard fresh water for future generations of Canadians.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians, including from my own constituency of Mississauga South.
The petition has to do with human rights. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that human rights abuses are rampant around the world, including in Indonesia.
The petitioners also point out that Canada is internationally recognized as the champion of human rights and therefore the petitioners pray and call on parliament to continue to condemn such human rights abuses and also to seek to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of the citizens of Ottawa and the riding of Ottawa South.
I submit a petition in the House of Commons, in parliament assembled, that we the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following, that Canadians deserve an accountable Senate.
Therefore your petitioners call on parliament to request that the Prime Minister accept the results of a Senate election once again on behalf of the citizens of Ottawa South.
PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
I remind hon. members that petitions are not to be read but briefly summarized by presenters in accordance with the standing orders.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
moved:
That this House urges the government to respect provincial jurisdiction over health care management, to increase transfers to the provinces for health care unconditionally, and to avoid using budget surpluses to encroach upon the health care field.
Mr. Speaker, today as we speak an important federal-provincial conference is being held on the social union. We are aware that at the very heart of this planned social union lies the issue of jurisdiction over health care management and health care services throughout Canada, and all the provinces, including Quebec, of course.
We are also aware that Canadians and Quebeckers want to see major investments in health. There have been unprecedented federal cuts to social programs, half of those to health, and these have jeopardized the provinces' ability to deliver quality health care.
In Quebec, it is the openly stated wish of nearly all stakeholders that health care management be restored to the provinces, that Quebec be the only one involved in its health sector.
The Montreal Gazette —not known for being pro-sovereignist—recently called on the federal government to unconditionally re-establish the health care transfer payments to the provinces.
However, today the federal government's political visibility moves it to do something with the budget surplus, a surplus accumulated on the backs of the provinces, at an annual rate of $6.3 billion, and on the backs of the unemployed and businesses. I remind the House that $20 billion was taken—and that is the nice way of saying it—from the employment insurance fund by this government under false pretences.
Now that surpluses have been accumulated on the backs of the provinces and the unemployed, this government is trying to set itself up as a saviour by saying to people “We will fix your health problems”. And yet it is this government that created the current chaos and the problems the provinces are facing. This government wants to arrive and say “We have the solutions”. It has no solutions, it created the problems. The solution is to return the money where it took it from, where it spirited it away, and I cannot say it any other way, it would be unparliamentary.
There is nothing surprising in the fact that this government has acted this way for years and today talks about transparency, especially in health care, when it spirited away $20 billion on the backs of the unemployed saying “We shall determine employment insurance contributions”. Yet this government does not put one red cent into the employment insurance system, which is wholly funded by businesses and employees. However, this government is taking this money assigned to employment insurance and spending it here and there to reduce the deficit, and is planning to give the wealthy a tax break at the expense of the unemployed.
I remember the Prime Minister stating that he had been paying EI premiums for the past 35 years when in fact he never did. There is cause for concern when the number one decision maker does not even know how the system works.
Like a studious seminarian, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recites a litany of so-called federal responsibilities over health matters. What this pious Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs fails to mention, however, is that the federal government acquired these responsibilities in the area of health care over time by interfering in and encroaching on provincial jurisdictions with its spending power.
This spending power is the crux of the political, constitutional and budgetary problem we are facing, which is the focus of the discussions, today, on social union.
This spending power is how the government has managed to intrude everywhere. In every attempt at constitutional reform, the issue of spending power has come up. The Liberal Party has always opposed these reforms and even sabotaged them, to preserve this spending power. And this is particularly true with this Prime Minister.
Members should remember 1982, when Quebec was isolated. Remember the smell in the kitchens of the Château Laurier. Remember that this Prime Minister also derailed the Meech Lake accord with Jean Charest. Remember who said “Thank you, Clyde” in Calgary, and Clyde has now been appointed to the Newfoundland supreme court. These people know how to reward their friends. It is this government and these same people who, for 35 years, have been using all the budget surpluses, while also generating deficits. We are not even talking about surpluses anymore. These people created major deficits by using their spending power to intrude on jurisdictions that are not theirs.
As a result of all this, we now have a $600 billion debt. It is costing us $45 billion annually to service a debt that was generated through unnecessary intrusions. The government created bureaucracies where there was no need for such structures, and it will create yet another by setting up a national health care monitoring system, by using statisticians and controllers such as those who are trying to cut EI benefits, in compliance with this minister's guidelines. Instead of writing books, the minister should start reading his mail and look at what is going on in his department.
These are the same folks who were responsible for such a debt, who have built up an entire bureaucracy when what is needed are not statisticians and inspectors, but doctors, nurses, clinical workers and hospital support workers, because these people do their utmost to deliver good service. We should be singing their praises. They cannot do their jobs because people on the other side have cut $6.3 billion annually. The amount has dropped from $19 billion to $12 billion or $12.5 billion. The government wants us to believe these people added $7 billion. The truth is that the government cut $42 billion and not $49 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Drummondville. Please let me know when I am nearing the end of it.
When the government says it has to ensure the quality of health care, is that not telling the provinces that they are not responsible enough to manage their own affairs? Are provincial leaders being told that they are irresponsible? That they lack compassion? These folks have been running health care in Canada for 132 years. Everything was fine until transfer payments were cut.
Now these people are being told they are not competent to look after their own affairs. Ottawa will take care of it. It is the old “Ottawa knows best” song. We know it. We know how this government likes to meddle in other people's business.
The government gives us the assurances line but the Minister of Finance tells us the reason he is unable to reinvest in health right now is because he does not have all the assurances. Yet Saskatoon has given them.
However, all of the premiers have written recently to tell the Prime Minister what they will reiterate again today, which is that they are committed to scrupulously respect the health care principles underlying the health legislation. They are also committed to invest all of the money in health care. But they do not have to be told to invest it in this particular hospital or in this service. The health care issue cannot be left to bureaucrats or politicians set on gaining more visibility.
Since we are talking about the principles guiding health care management and all health care services throughout Canada, I will conclude by saying that the government is trying to establish a sixth principle, which is visibility, just as they are trying to do with the millennium scholarship fund, another area upon which they should not be infringing. If the Prime Minister is so set on getting more visibility, he could replace the image of Queen Elizabeth II with his own on all $20 bills.
We would get some applause. We would get some laughs. It is not funny but it is laughable and at least it would not be as serious as encroaching on yet another area which is none of their business.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the opposition motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, which reads as follows:
That this House urges the government to respect provincial jurisdiction over health care management, to increase transfers to the provinces for health care unconditionally, and to avoid using budget surpluses to encroach upon the health care field.
It is sad that we have to move heaven and earth to make the government understand things that should normally be obvious when we are just two weeks away from the tabling of the federal budget. Nevertheless, the poorly hidden agenda of the Prime Minister and his Liberal government makes such a debate necessary.
The motion before us includes the following three elements: respecting provincial jurisdiction, increasing transfers unconditionally and using budget surpluses more efficiently.
The only thing to do is to restore transfer payments for health care and social services unconditionally. The provinces want more money put into health care and they want the federal government to let them manage the health care system according to their priorities, as stipulated in the Canada Health Act.
I would like to quote from a short text which reminds us of the federal government's role in the area of health care:
The respective responsibilities of the federal government and the provincial governments with regard to health care are very different. Strictly speaking, the federal government cannot re-establish and maintain a national medicare system because it does not have the power to regulate delivery of health care to individuals.
Indeed, under the Canadian Constitution and the interpretation courts have given of it, health is mainly a provincial jurisdiction. The only clauses in the Constitution which explicitly refer to health establish the federal's jurisdiction over navy hospitals and quarantine.
The federal government only maintains health services for groups which come under its jurisdiction, namely natives, the population of Yukon, Canadian armed forces, veterans as well as inmates in federal penitentiaries. Provincial governments are responsible for establishing the number of beds available in their respective territories, which categories of personnel will be hired and how the system will serve the population.
As well provinces approve hospital budgets, negotiate fee scales with medical associations and administer their health programs within their own territorial boundaries.
It seems quite clear to me.
The show of strength of 1982 confirmed the distribution of powers as established by the Constitution Act of 1867. This same act, in sections 92(13) and 92(16), gives jurisdiction to provinces over health matters except in a few precise areas. The role of the federal government regarding health care is to redistribute money. The federal government raises funds through taxation and redistributes that money unconditionally as transfers to provinces.
Again, health is a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government has no right to interfere in any way, nor is it allowed to interfere in education with its millennium funds.
In the past, the finance minister seemed to be more mindful of provincial jurisdiction in health care. According to the minister himself the greater freedom of action of provinces in their own jurisdictions was even one of the reasons why he established the Canadian social transfer.
Indeed, when time came to cut, the good old finance minister said:
We believe that the restrictions attached by the federal government to transfer payments in areas of clear provincial responsibility should be minimized. ...
Provinces will now be able to design more innovative social programs, programs that respond to the needs of people today rather than to inflexible rules.
He sings a different tune now.
Whatever happened to these nice principles of freedom of action and respect for jurisdiction? Once again, we are witnessing this same paradox: the federal government is shamelessly skirting its own laws while a sovereignist political party from Quebec is fighting to get respect for the Canadian Constitution.
The federal government must restore its contribution to front line health care services through the Canada health and social transfer current arrangements. To do so, it must bring it back to the same level as before the reckless cuts unilaterally imposed by the Liberals, who thus managed to have others do their dirty work.
These cuts by the federal government have contributed to the gutting of the health care systems in provinces already reeling from the freeze on transfer payments imposed by the Tories.
Last August in Saskatoon, all of the premiers reached a consensus calling for the federal government to reimburse the annual amount of $6.3 billion. Now that the government has surpluses, funding must be re-established at the 1993-94 level, namely $18.8 billion.
The Quebec government and the provincial governments are not the only ones pointing an accusing finger at the Liberals for the problems experienced by the health system and calling for immediate reimbursement. Organizations representing front-line health workers have also identified the federal government as being the main one responsible.
In a press release dated September 22, 1998, the Canadian Medical Association stated:
Federal funding cuts to health and social transfers to the provinces have been the main barriers for Canadians' access to quality health care and the cause of the greatest crisis in confidence in our health care system since the inception of Canada's Medicare program in the 1960's.
This is not the sovereignists talking, but the Canadian Medical Association.
Again yesterday we received a press release from the President of the CMA calling upon the provincial premiers and territorial leaders to stand firm in their demand for full restoration of federal transfers for health care funding that have been cut by the federal government.
The association is also calling for the transfers to be indexed to reflect the increased costs of new technologies and the ageing of the population.
In a press release on August 5, 1998, the Canadian health care association said:
The federal government must immediately inject funds into the Canada social transfer and index it so it is able to meet the needs of a growing and aging population.
We recommended that the $12.5 billion be a floor and not a ceiling ... the increase in the transfers to the provinces should strengthen the health insurance system, and the money should be invested where it is likely to have the greatest effect.
It is important to understand that the effects expected are on the health services provided by the provinces and not on the federal government's visibility.
William Robson, senior political analyst at the C.D. Howe Institute, said:
Provinces will add money to their systems more easily if Ottawa has not already grabbed the tax room. And provincial managers will focus on the details of delivering health services better if they are not sitting in Ottawa negotiating with bureaucrats who may be thousands of miles from the action.
These are not our words. He even adds that, on the subject of health care in Canada, the right prescription is coming from Lucien Bouchard, not Ottawa. However, the federal government is again reverting to old reflexes: arrogance and encroachment.
I am going to conclude, because I have one minute left.
Since I have only one minute left, I wish to propose the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “encroach” the following:
“further”
Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the House the assurance that discussions have taken place between all parties in the House concerning the following motion:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on the opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 9, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on another matter. Again discussions have taken place between all parties. I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion with reference to Private Members' Business later today. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Motion No. 380, all questions necessary to dispose of the said motion shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 9, 1999 at the expiry of Government Orders.
Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Does the hon. chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I must notify the House that debate will now be on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Drummond.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, as you may have concluded after listening to the remarks by my colleagues from Laurier—Sainte-Marie and Drummond, for the remainder of the debate, members of the Bloc Quebecois will be sharing their time.