Debates of Feb. 4th, 1999

Supply

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

The President of the Treasury Board is using figures from the year when the deficit reached $45 billion. These figures are no longer valid.

We pay taxes to Ottawa. It is our money that is being used when there is a crisis in western Canada's agricultural sector. We also pay when there is flooding in Winnipeg. It is not just in Quebec. This is a kind of insurance policy: one year we benefit from it, while in another year we put money into the fund. But it is our taxes. I have no problem.

As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as federal or provincial money. There is only taxpayers' money.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington.

I thank the orators who have already spoken in the debate. It has been fruitful. It does occur of course at a time when some of the issues here may be resolved consensually by a meeting several blocks away of the Prime Minister and the first ministers I have benefited by the discussion by the members of the Bloc. It is good to remind ourselves that the Constitution is more than a discussion of sovereignty in the abstract, that there are larger issues of reform and modernization which can be addressed and to which members of the Bloc opposite can contribute usefully.

I take this opportunity as a diversion for paying compliment to the statement made on behalf of the Bloc two days ago in the debate on the notwithstanding clause by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

When I heard the statement I thought that is a statement I could have written myself. It was a very sensible statement. It was wise. The illogic of it of course was that it pointed not to two negative votes, but somehow in the mysterious ways a vote for one, a vote against the other, I do not think Decartes would have approved of this display of logic. Nevertheless the reasoning is good and it takes us back to the position that federalism is not some frozen system of rules and regulations developed in a bygone century and to be applied immutably to changed social conditions today. Federalism is essentially a very flexible system. It is sometimes forgotten by Canadians, English speaking Canadians perhaps more than others, that the Westminster model which was developed by the British imperial power, which was not noticeably federal at the time it developed it, the theory in practice was developed for its overseas colonies. Look at the problems the English have in encompassing decentralization for Scotland and Wales.

However, the Westminster model is not the only model of federalism. I refer again to the Pepin-Roberts commission, perhaps the most imaginative of the expert commissions of study on our Constitution in the last 50 years. It essentially proclaimed the truth that there are many roads to Rome and there are many different models of federalism. It introduced an interesting notion which did not need an obscure terminology to render it, asymmetrical federalism, simply saying that in any mature federal system the sociological conditions are crucial. We treat equal things equally but unequal things may have a differentiation of constitutional treatment. Why not? It is ordinary common sense.

One of applications of the new approach, a flexible approach of the Pepin-Roberts style to federalism, is the concept of the social union which is being discussed, as least the practical implementation of an abstract concept, by the Prime Minister and the first ministers at this moment. As a term of art it is post-war German federalism. There is nothing wrong with that. The post-war German federal system is what the Americans might have if they had lost the war and had to rebuild their constitution from the ground up. It is very modern federalism but in its very intelligent, pragmatic allocation and transfer of powers between three levels of government it does necessitate, if it is to be applied to Canada, a constitutional amendment.

One of our problems with the patriation package in 1982 was whatever it did in other areas it put the Constitution in a straight-jacket in terms of amendments. It is very hard to amend the Constitution by the front door. This is an admirable feature I think Canadians have developed. This is one part of their English heritage but it is also part of the French heritage because it is also occurred in France, the development by constitutional glosses, custom convention, changes made by practice which last because they are common sense. They are sensible. They respond to new problems and nobody is going to say nay to that.

When we look at the social union in terms of medical payments, partnership and financing medicare, there is so much that can be done by accommodations between governments.

Special arrangements can be made for different regions corresponding to demonstrated special societal facts or special needs. Uniformity is not a sine qua non, and this is where Pepin-Robarts in reminding us of the opting in and opting out facilities and raising the compensation in opting out provided the opportunity if there is a spirit of goodwill and of pragmatic compromise for working out arrangements to accommodate the increasing pluralism in our federal society.

If these arrangements being discussed today do not work out we can assure the House that we will as a national government and uphold our principle that there are national norms in medicare, in medical treatment and in medical research that we will in fulfilment of our mandate and our duty to the country seek to effectuate within our power. But there is nothing to prevent administrative devolution in the spirit of co-operative federalism. The message from the Prime Minister is that we would like to work with you.

Co-operative federalism, Lester Pearson style social union and the new trendy word of today, borrowed as I say somewhat inexactly from West German federalism, these are all ways of achieving socially useful results within an accommodatingly flexible federal system. The principle of subsidiarity, the notion from the European Union that each level of government should be allowed to do what it does best in terms of a functional reallocation of powers on a basis of co-operative federalism and customary adjustment of the constitution, it is all there.

We wish the Prime Minister and the first ministers every success in their efforts. If they do not succeed we will do our duty as the federal government to the Canadian people to deliver on a 21st century medical insurance system properly financed. We want the co-operation of the provincial governments. We welcome the element of pragmatism I saw in the Bloc motion, the Bloc attitude two days ago on the notwithstanding clause. I wish its logic could have been more in the Cartesian sense and the two votes would have been identical in terms of its party, but the progress is there.

This has been a good debate. It has been intelligent. There is the going backwards and forwards in terms of the give and take that is the essential of any mature federal system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the philosophical speech of the member opposite. He spoke of a flexible federalist government but that government actually appears dictatorial to me.

I would like to know what the hon. member thinks of this government which, after cutting billions of dollars in provincial transfers, now says it wants to put some money back into those transfers, but not unconditionally. Indeed, this government wants to interfere to the point of dictating to the provinces how to administer billions of dollars, how to become part of Canada-wide programs, while the Canada Health Act already provides for five conditions to which all provincial governments in Canada have already agreed.

Why should the federal government interfere even further? Why?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the policy of our government is to ensure each Canadian has equal access to the health care system. If necessary, our government will act alone.

However, we prefer to have a system of which all provinces are part, a system based on equal involvement by both levels of government. This is what co-operative federalism is all about. This is the guiding principle the Prime Minister is discussing this very day with provincial premiers.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the motion today. I do so on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington.

Canadians place a very high premium on their health and the health of their families. It is a fundamental element of our individual quality of life in Canada. It is more than just the absence of disease. It is a resource for every day living. At a population level we know that a healthy population contributes immeasurably to the social well-being and economic productivity of the country.

Canadians as a population compared to citizens of other countries enjoy very excellent health. Canadians are remarkably healthy by every standard around the world in terms of health such as life expectancy and self-reported health.

Our enviable health status is due in no small part to our commitment to health promotion. That is something of which we an all be very proud because Canada is internationally respected as a world leader in health promotion. The world looks to Canada for leadership in health research, policy and practices that will help all countries make progress in achieving health for all their citizens as well.

For example, Canada was the site of the first world conference on health promotion. We can be proud of this leadership we took in developing a charter for the World Health Organization which set out the prerequisites for a healthy population based on a health promotion approach.

The federal government plays a key role in health promotion. The federal government supports initiatives to help Canadians adopt healthy behaviours: for example, to quit smoking, to achieve a better level of physical fitness, and to have a healthy and nutritious diet.

The results of this work have been truly remarkable. Deaths due to heart disease have declined. Canadians are much more fit than they were even a generation ago. Their eating habits have improved and smoking rates have gone down. We know that by getting Canadians to adopt a healthier lifestyle we can add years of life and health to their lives.

All this is not to say that all Canadians lead a healthy lifestyle. There is much more to be done. The federal government will continue to play a key role in helping Canadians through public education, through education of health professionals such as doctors and nurses, and through supporting action to make our communities healthy and safe places in which to live and to work.

Health is much more than a product of individual choice. We must create the conditions that allow and encourage individuals to make healthy choices: for example, opportunities for healthy child development, for educational and employment opportunities, and safe and healthy workplaces. Most of all we must foster community action which encourages all members of all ages and all levels of ability to contribute to and partake in the benefits of a healthy social, economic and physical environment.

The federal government helps to create the conditions which foster health and healthy choices by all Canadian citizens. How does it do this? It does it by working in partnership with provincial and territorial governments, with the voluntary and community sectors and with the private sector on national strategies to address pressing health issues such as HIV and AIDS, tobacco use, substance abuse, and chronic disease such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Time and time again the federal government has through its work in partnership with others helped Canadians gain an upper hand on the disease and health problems that concern them most.

A good example of Health Canada's partnership work is the heart health initiative. This initiative since its inception eight years ago has created an extensive network involving the federal government, 10 provincial departments of health, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and over 1,000 organizations in the public, private and voluntary sectors.

The objective of the initiative is the reduction of cardiovascular disease by addressing the risk factors and socioeconomic conditions that underlie it. While good progress has been made Canada still ranks in the middle of industrialized countries with respect to heart disease mortality. Federal leadership in this area will help continue this progress, and this we must do.

Another example of Health Canada's partnership work is in the community action program for children. Health Canada has developed partnership arrangements with all provinces for this very important initiative which helps ensure optimal opportunities for healthy childhood development. Through this program Health Canada works with its partners to support community programs and groups to establish and deliver services that address the developmental needs of our children from birth to six years of age who are at risk of poor health or live in conditions likely to give rise to poor health.

This program has been successful in building community capacity. Health Canada works with the provinces and territories toward a strategy for healthy child development through the federal, provincial and territorial advisory committee on population health. The shared vision of this work is the belief that healthy child development is the foundation of lifelong health and that by working together we can achieve optimal health for all Canadian children.

At the other end of the life course Health Canada works in partnership with the provinces and territories to promote healthy aging. It is well known, for example, that a society which encourages and supports independence, autonomy and a good quality of life for its senior citizens is a society that is characterized by the health, vitality and longevity of its seniors population. Health Canada has developed a framework for aging in partnership with the provinces and territories to help all levels of government see our programs policies and services through a seniors lens, something which is very important.

At no time has this been more important than now. After all, this is the international year of the older person. In the years to come our senior population will grow tremendously. The federal government is committed to continue its work in partnership with others to ensure that as a society our seniors have optimal opportunities for health and good quality life.

The federal government is working on many other fronts in collaboration to support health promotion and disease prevention. One of the most important ways is to track and report on progress on the health of Canadians. Together federal, provincial and territorial governments developed a report on the health of Canadians. The first edition was issued by ministers jointly in 1996. The second edition will be released in the fall of this year updating the trends in health status reported in 1996 and giving us an opportunity to celebrate improvements and to recommit ourselves to work on persistent health problems and inequalities.

The federal government has and will continue to play an important role in the health of all Canadians, and rightfully so. Canadians count on us to work in partnership with others and to promote and protect their health wherever they may live in Canada. The achievements in health status over the last century can be attributed in large part to the efforts of the federal government.

We can be justly proud of our record and our respected place on the world stage. It is second to none in terms of health promotion and in other areas. Our health care system is a core fundamental value for Canadians. Accordingly we at the federal level will continue to work very hard to ensure that our health care system remains one of the best in the world. Canadians expect this. Canadians want this. Canadians need this. Quite frankly, Canadians deserve this. We will continue to do this at the federal level and we will do it well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech of the member opposite, a very good philosophical speech. No one can object to virtue and glory. However, I have a concern. I would like to know what his position on hepatitis C was?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question. What we on the government side have been saying is not theoretical. It is in actuality the reality of what we as a government have been doing over the years to support the health of Canadians. We have done so recognizing that the health care system in Canada is a fundamental core value to Canadians wherever they may live across this great land of ours.

We will continue as a federal government to promote health care and to do the right thing when it comes to health for Canadians. We will do it knowing they want that to be the case for themselves and for their children.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. Brian Tobin, the Premier of Newfoundland, recently indicated that he would like to relinquish health care responsibilities and give them back to the federal government.

Given that he was a former colleague of the member's, what would he think about that kind of program?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for the question. I cannot speak for Premier Tobin in terms of what he may or may not want. What I can do is speak on behalf of the government.

When it comes to health care for Canadians we have over the past number of years worked out a very strong partnership among the federal, provincial and territorial governments to ensure quality care for Canadians wherever they may live in Canada. That is precisely what Canadians want. They want us to work in this kind of partnership to ensure that a health care system is in place for themselves and their families.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite referred in his speech to principles that all provinces, including Quebec, share in the area of health, improvement of care, equipment, and education.

Is there something new here? When his government decided to cut transfers, in health among others, did those principles not already exist? Now that this government has the financial means to act, is its main concern not to get involved in health care, to gain overall control of this area and to promote its visibility?

However, I would like to come back to the question he did not answer. With regard to health, is hepatitis C a concern for the government?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question. I reiterate that we at the federal level have worked very hard to ensure there are partnerships in place to deal with all health related matters including the issue of hepatitis C. As members know we have put in place a fund of $1.1 billion relative to that issue. With our provincial and territorial partners we will continue to do the right thing on behalf of all Canadians including those who suffer from hepatitis C.

It is important that we at the federal level continue to do that to ensure that health care as we know it continues as the core fundamental value that it is to Canadians wherever they may live in this great land of ours.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the Liberal Party talks about partnership and co-operation among the various parties. He should back that up with resources.

He knows that the federal government has taken $2.5 billion out of health care services for the last three years. He now talks about the ability of partnering and co-operation.

What would he have to say about the lack of funds and resources behind his statements?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has committed and will continue to commit the funds necessary for the health care system in Canada. We have done so in the past and we will continue to do so in the future in the best interest of Canadians wherever they may live in Canada.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the Bloc motion asking 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.

As we speak, the premiers and the prime minister are gathered—they may be having lunch right now—to discuss the federal presence in the health care field. This meeting was called due to Ottawa's centralizing drive; it would never have had to happen if only the federal government knew how to respect the sharing of responsibilities as outlined in the Constitution.

Indeed, I will state again for the benefit of our fellow citizens that under subsections 7 and 16 of section 92 of the 1867 Constitutional Act, and their interpretation by the courts, it is clearly established and recognized that the management of health care and social services is a provincial responsibility.

The federal government for its part often uses its spending power to skirt the spirit of the Constitution and spend money in areas under provincial jurisdiction. Whether we approve or not of this spending power, we cannot but acknowledge the fact that the federal government has not made a wise use of it since, more often that not, the money thus spent is borrowed.

Successive governments have made such a use of this spending power to guarantee their visibility, their re-election or their supremacy or simply to flatter their own vanity, that Canada's credit card balance reached more than $600 billion, putting future generations of Canada into debt for many years to come.

The very same government who imposed drastic cuts in social programs, mainly in the health programs, wants to do the same thing again by imposing new standards, a new bureaucracy and new duplications. We have to put an end to this at all costs, non only in the interest of the people of Quebec, but of all Canadians.

The federal government would like to be recognised as the great saviour of health care when in fact it is the cause of all the problems experienced in the provinces. We must be very careful. I would like people to hear clearly what I am saying. At the present time, the federal government is playing with words. When the Prime Minister comes out and says he will generously put $2 billion back into health care, we are led to believe that he will take $2 billion out of the surpluses and put it back into health care. How generous!

But what the government really wants to do—we have forgotten a bit that there are still $40 billion to be cut before 2003—the government very generously says that because of our sound economic situation, it will only cut $38 billion between now and 2003.

So let us not be deceived. Some will say that $2 billion is still a significant amount. It is obviously very important that the $38 billion in cuts be reduced. We do not need any more cuts, but we should not cling to the hope that the government will be overly generous with the money it is digging out of our pockets.

We should also be mindful that under the transfer payment legislation, transfers are set by the government unilaterally, without consultation. Since 1977, those payments have been reduced, frozen or cut, and their adjustment has no relation whatsoever with the real cost of implementing provincial programs. It can be said that the federal commitment to health care has been broken.

By a strange coincidence, the debates that took place under Prime Minister Pearson on a Canadian health care system were made public yesterday. Surprisingly enough, there is another meeting today on the same issue. I hope the Liberal Party will return to its roots and seek inspiration from that great Canadian, Lester B. Pearson, and advocate policies that are more liberal, and less conservative and right wing.

Since 1994, the present Liberal government has cut $6.3 billion dollars in transfer payments to the provinces for health care, education and social assistance. Therefore, it is hardly in a position to lecture the provinces.

As for the federal government's wanting to impose a whole series of new conditions for maintaining and increasing its financial contribution to health care, let met remind the House that the National Council of Welfare, an organization whose role is to advise the health minister, warned against such action and said:

It would be extremely hypocritical to reduce contributions to the provinces... while raising the standards required of them.

However, the federal government chose to take the very position the National Council of Welfare called hypocritical.

The only thing the federal government has to do in the next budget is to listen to the wishes of the people and the unanimous requests of the provinces, take billions of dollars from its surplus and massively reinvest in health care. The provinces will know how to use this money most effectively.

We should entertain absolutely no doubt about the capacity of the provincial governments to spend carefully, in the best interests of the population, the billions of dollars the federal government is transferring to them for health care. All the federal government has to do is trust the elected representatives. The public is the best watchdog there is to prevent any abuses the governments could be tempted to make.

If the government members across the way do not start to take into account the real interests of the people, if they remain insensitive to what is going on in this country for too long, they will soon find out how bitter the pill is, since they will end up in opposition. That is what I wish for with all my heart.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis for an excellent speech.

I want to question her on a matter which is a concern for every member of the Bloc Quebecois, the federal government's infringement on provincial jurisdictions.

Before asking my question, I remind members that the Prime Minister has questioned in this very House the provinces' will to reinvest in health. He said that it might be necessary to reach an agreement for increased funding and that there might be certain conditions, such as requiring reports on the use of funds, reports on the various medical services offered, and imposing federal priorities and policies on the provinces.

Is it not, according to my colleague, an infringement on provincial jurisdiction, something that is not mentioned in the Canadian constitution? Under the Canada Health Act, provinces have to abide by five major principles. The federal government, for its part, commits to using our taxes to redistribute the money to provinces to manage health care.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for her excellent question and her very relevant comments.

In fact, government or at least cabinet members seem to be making conflicting speeches. They do not always say the same thing. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is boasting throughout Canada that the government is decentralized, the most decentralized in the world. We can see that, as a political science student, he did not study very hard in his course on the decentralization of powers. It may even have been his worst subject. He is also telling us that his government totally abides by the Constitution.

The way this government is behaving is unacceptable. From the moment the federal government wants to sign an administrative agreement or to do something that would add to the five conditions agreed upon in the beginning by Canada and the provinces, at the time the health system was created, it is flouting the Constitution and mocking the provincial jurisdiction with respect to health and social services.

There is no question in my mind that the federal government infringes on our jurisdictions.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Bloc for bringing this very important debate to the House of Commons where it should be.

If the Bloc member believes the money should be handed over unconditionally so that the province can dictate to itself what it would like to do with that health care money, what about the aboriginal communities in her province?

As we know, aboriginal communities across this country are suffering greater than non-native people when it comes to health care concerns, various diseases and the crises they face. What would her province be able to do to improve the lot of the aboriginal people as compared to other provinces and the rest of the country?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong, and I stand to be corrected, as I am always prepared to learn something, but I believe aboriginal health care is one of the responsibilities of the federal government, because it has the responsibility for aboriginal people.

Despite this responsibility I believe to be federal, it is clearly understood that, in Quebec, one need only look around to see that there is an absolutely excellent relationship with the Indians, the Inuit, with all the tribes, all the nations we have within the territory of Quebec.

There is no doubt whatsoever that we do everything in our power to assist them, in education, in social services, in health care. I believe that we will always be able to do our part in these areas. Unless I am again mistaken, I believe that the aboriginal communities and nations in Quebec enjoy the best standard of living in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part this morning in the Bloc Quebecois opposition day on health care.

It is truly distressing to see that we, the Bloc Quebecois, we in the opposition, are being forced to introduce a motion calling upon the federal government to respect its own Constitution. To have come to this is totally abnormal.

I believe, however, that this reflects the state of the Canadian federation, the state in which the Prime Minister of Canada, the Liberal party of Canada, has plunged us, particularly in the last four years.

It is especially sad to hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister tell us to stop our constitutional squabbling, that there is no point in getting into constitutional discussions again when there are people waiting for federal transfer payments, that there is no point messing up the system as we, the evil separatists, do.

One has to be unbelievably hypocritical to make such a statement. Any debate or friction with respect to jurisdiction originates with the Prime Minister of Canada and member for Shawinigan or with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Under the Constitution, health is undeniably an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

They are now telling us that, in the future, the federal government will not only have a say in the matter but will actually manage transfer payments to the provinces for health. It will also monitor results. Such departure from the Canadian Constitution is pure heresy. They are not even complying with their own Constitution. It also makes for great theatrics.

The federal government is passing itself off as this great saviour of the health system, when in fact it is largely responsible for all the problems currently faced from coast to coast. The crowded emergency rooms and closed hospitals are the doing of the finance minister and the Prime Minister.

Since the 1995 budget, one of the most hypocritical budgets in the history of Canadian taxation, the Minister of Finance has decided that, every year until 2003, systematic cuts would be made in federal transfers for the funding of health care, post-secondary education and social assistance. But these cuts hit health care, which accounts for about half the transfers, the hardest.

By the year 2003, federal transfers to provinces for the funding of health care will have been cut by $40 billion.

This is today's reality. But the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs constantly distort reality in order to have us believe—and at the same time to increase their visibility—that the federal government is the great saviour. The federal government is the great destroyer of the health system in Canada. Every year, the provinces have $6.3 billion less in their coffers, almost half of that amount for health care in Canada.

Negotiations are now ongoing, and I hope they will be successful. But if it were not for the action taken in the 1995 budget and the disarray of people who are waiting in hospital emergency wards, which are in bad shape because of the federal government, this conference would not have been necessary. The federal transfers for health care would have increased automatically because, since last year, the federal government has managed to create a surplus thanks to its horrible cuts, a surplus that, normally, should have been given back automatically to the people those who really paid for putting our fiscal house in order.

This year, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister should have said that, because of the surpluses resulting from the fact that some $6 billion have been cut each year from transfers to the provinces, in particular for health care, they would give back this year's surplus to the provinces, unconditionally and in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.

But that is not what was done. With great fanfare, the federal government wanted to ensure its visibility and show that it is the saviour of the health care system. This is a monumental farce. It is sad that the provinces should be forced, with a knife at their throats because they are struggling and suffering from yearly shortfalls, to take part in last minute federal-provincial conferences to agree to certain transfer arrangements. Six billion dollars every year, this is not peanuts. I think it is sad and tragic that we have come to this.

I will explain to you how we have come to this. The Prime Minister did not make any bones of it. When he was in France, he said that everything was fine in Canada, that the federal government made the cuts and that the provinces did the dirty work. The Prime Minister made no bones of it. The president of the Treasury Board did not either when he said: “When the provinces make cuts, after our own cuts, we will appear as saviours”. He said it just two years ago, and that is what was brewing.

Coming back to the 1995 budget, the finance minister said to himself: “It is not a very popular thing to make cuts in social programs and health care, I will do it only once, I will announce it only once, and it will continue until 2003”. That is what he did. That is why I underlined earlier the hypocritical aspect of the budget, because it will cause a disaster—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This House is an appropriate forum for presenting arguments. But the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has repeatedly used the words hypocrite and hypocritical. I think this is not helping the debate. I would ask the member to stick to his arguments and to refrain from making personal attacks because that is not helping the debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is quite familiar with the rules of this House. He knows that it is against the rules to refer to other members as hypocrites. I am sure that was not his intention.

The hon. member for Bourassa is right when he says that using this word in that way is unparliamentary, and I hope that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will examine the Standing Orders closely in this regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have fully complied with the rules. Perhaps the hon. member should clean his ears, because I did not mention anyone when I talked about hypocrisy. I referred to a budget that is hypocritical. Perhaps the member feels that a budget is a person. There seems to be a problem of understanding, perhaps a problem of conceptual learning. I have never made a personal attack.

So, I was saying that this was the most hypocritical budget, because, in one fell swoop, the government decided to impose cuts that will exceed $40 billion by the year 2003, money that is largely used by the provinces to finance health services.

Since it is the national health care system, which is administered by the provinces, that was the victim of the government's attempt to put its fiscal house in order, one would have expected the government to use part of that money according to the previous provisions. In other words, the federal government should have given that money back to the provinces, without making a big show of it to promote its visibility. It should have given part, not all of what was asked based on the Saskatoon agreement, that is the agreement reached by the premiers.

I find it totally unacceptable to be at this point, where the government has huge surpluses that help promote the personality of the year, namely the Minister of Finance and future leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, at the expense of ordinary Canadians. The government is even resorting to despicable methods—as we saw with the employment insurance program—to deprive the unemployed of hundreds of millions of dollars. They create a surplus in the employment insurance fund of $6 billion annually, a real public vendetta. That is where we are.

The federal government is setting itself up as the great saviour of the health care system when in fact it is responsible for entire mess we have been in since 1995. Then there are the unemployed, who continue to pay and will do so forever, if we are to believe the offhand and arrogant remarks of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development, at the rate of $6 billion annually.

They keep pressuring them so they can draw off every cent that will enable the federal government to increase its surplus and fund initiatives such as the millennium scholarship fund that move the Prime Minister's face, the federal government and the Canadian flag into the foreground. They are threatening the unemployed who are considering appealing a decision that is totally unacceptable and unjustified. They are even threatening the officials carrying out this vendetta with the loss of their jobs should they not meet the objectives.

There is not much difference between that and the mafia. There is not much difference between that and an organized vendetta. It is as if the idea in the little brain of the Minister of Finance is to have the biggest surplus possible in order to impress as many as possible so he appears to be the best manager in the world and swell his popularity in the near future at the head of the Liberal Party of Canada.

But is he creating social problems in his efforts to score political points? Is he dragging down the health care sector? Is he creating hardship for families in Quebec and in Canada, so that he can look good and keep Bay Street happy?

The humanity has all but gone out of the system when visibility is more important than people's health, when misinformation is more important than hard facts, the truth and democracy, and when vendettas are more important than unemployed workers in need of assistance. This is a terrible way to treat people.

I hope that one day the government will come to its senses. We should not have to get down on our knees for what is rightly ours. Quebeckers pay $30 billion in taxes annually. It is only right that part of this money, a good part of it, should come back to us without our having to negotiate a deal that would guarantee visibility for a power-hungry Prime Minister.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everything I have heard from the other side since this morning is absolutely appalling.

It has been said that the federal government is cutting left, right and centre. I would like to point out to my colleagues opposite that the major cuts were made here in Ottawa. The provinces were asked, two years in advance, to put their house in order. The only thing the Quebec government came up with was to cut municipal budgets even more than we cut its transfer payments, with about 4 months' notice.

The Quebec government decided to do a major cleanup in health care in three years. Nobody asked the Quebec government to cut the health care budget to eliminate the deficit and to try to bring about a winning referendum in the year 2000 on the backs of the people. Now they point the finger at the Government of Canada. They should be ashamed.

We eliminated the $42 billion deficit in five years. We can now start to think about lowering taxes for low income earners. We improved the system but we are still being blamed for everything. They should take a look in the mirror. It is really appalling to hear things like that today.

When we talk about the millennium scholarship fund, do we say that we will be asking teachers to teach more English than French or do we pretend that two plus two will now equal five? No. What we say is that we want to help talented young Canadians to keep on studying, even if their parents do not have the financial means to help them. We want to set up a scholarship program in concert with governments. It will be up to them to choose the recipients.

With a little bit of planing and co-operation, there should be no problem. The reason our visibility is resented is that people who want to separate do not want to reveal what the Government of Canada is doing for Quebeckers.

When we hear that $29 billion in taxes is sent to Ottawa, nobody mentions that $42 billion also comes from Ottawa. People should know that.

Let us talk about equalization: $4.7 billion is sent back to Quebec. Quebec receives 47 per cent of Canada's total equalization payments. The members opposite do not talk about that. They just talk about the bad things. If they want to be honest, they must tell both sides of the story. Quebeckers must know the truth.

What would the member do things? How would he improve health care? In Quebec City, nurses are laid off and then rehired with severance pay. Talk about good management!

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot should explain the solutions he is advocating. All he does is criticize. He never has a solution to suggest. He should suggest something.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is because he does not often listen to what we have to say. We have a great solution, and that is to run our own show and stop arguing with this gang that understands nothing. We call it Quebec sovereignty. This is our great solution.

When we run our onw show, we will no longer have to come to Ottawa to discuss how to redistribute our own money.

For his information, it is urgent that we put some order in the Quebec government's finances. I remind him that in 1994, when the Parti Quebecois came to power, his gang, his gang of Liberals, Bourbeau and company, left us with a $6 billion deficit, making it urgent to get our financial house in order.

If he does not think this is important, I remind him that federal cuts mean a $2 billion shortfall every year for Quebec. If he believes this does not hurt the people he is supposed to represent, he has one helluva problem.

If he thinks the millennium scholarships are a good deal he should run somewhere else in Canada because in Quebec we have a consensus against the millennium scholarships—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

If the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot needs to be taught a lesson, I will do so today. Helluva is blasphemous. I urge him to use appropriate language when he speaks. The people I represent like to hear speeches of substance rather than constant personal attacks.

My grandmother used to would wash out our mouth with soap. I will send the member a full box of soap.