Debates of March 20th, 2000

Supply

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking our colleagues of the Reform Party for their motion in the House today, which we as a party shall be pleased to support.

I would like to read the motion for the benefit of our audience. It reads:

That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the Canada Health and Social Transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the $1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this year's federal budget.

This motion comprises two key ideas. The first is that we need to put more money into health and that this money needs to be put where it counts for the federal government, namely in transfer payments.

The second is that there is such a mess at Human Resources Development Canada, with the mismanagement of the present minister, that there is no point in increasing grants and contributions.

We say yes to both proposals by the Reform Party, and I will try to address them separately.

First, I would like to call for calm. I can sense a certain excitement among the Liberals and would ask them to keep calm. I would ask them particularly to spare us the disgusting spectacle—the member for Québec East and Drummond will agree with me—which I would not be able to stand for very long, of them shamelessly tearing each other apart publicly in an utterly painful spectacle.

I conclude my digression by saying that I had the impression watching the Liberal Party convention on the weekend that it was a sort of bitch back session, in which each had something to bitch about with the other.

I would appeal for calm and dignified behaviour. Yes, everyone wants the Prime Minister to go. However, the decision to do so is his. I think a certain amount of composure is necessary in politics.

That said, I want to return to the two elements of the proposal before us.

When history records the second term of the Liberals, it will record the blatantly gross incompetence displayed by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

People have to understand that we are not opposed to a program that helps to create jobs. I myself as the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, representing a riding with over 20% unemployment, have nothing against a program to help develop business and create jobs. In an economy like ours, salary subsidies often play a role for those about to have their first job and often help get business going.

I have no hesitation in saying that, in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, some companies found it helpful to get grants, and my community benefited from such grants. However, what the Reform Party motion says is that it does not make sense to have let things happen without any kind of control.

I remind members of Emploi-Québec. An extraordinary job was done by merging three major organizations into a single entity, Emploi-Québec. The members opposite behaved like hypocrites by making fun of Emploi-Québec, of the problems of a new organization and of Diane Lemieux.

It is unbelievable to see that the Department of Human Resources Development, which is not a new department and which did not integrate three new organizations, is characterized by a carelessness and lack of control that justify the opposition's concerns.

I would like to remind government members of a number of facts. The minister released the internal audit report on grants and contributions in mid-January. The auditor took a close look at seven categories of programs that were part of the sample being reviewed. The grants and contributions under these programs totalled about $1 billion per year over a three year period, or about $3 billion.

Let us look at the situation as it was presented in mid-January by the Minister of Human Resources Development. When we see these figures, we cannot imagine something like this taking place in a democracy. We cannot imagine that such incompetence in a department like Human Resources Development Canada, given the importance it should have within the government.

In 87% of projects, there was no indication of supervision by officers and, in 80%, no evidence of financial control. This is no small matter. The first thing one learns in public administration is that any accountant in whatever business in whatever town, however small, may not authorize an expenditure without supporting documentation.

In a department engaged in an undertaking as important as the job creation fund, there was no evidence of financial control in 80% of the projects in the sample I mentioned. I have this to say to the government members “Wake up, get with it, and do something because this is ridiculous”. How can the public trust this government when it is not even able to assume its most basic management responsibilities?

There was no indication that expected results were attained in 75% of projects and contributions in the sample. Management indicators is the administrative term used. As I am sure hon. members are aware, in the case of programs such as the community action program for children, the national AIDS strategy, or the drug strategy of years gone by, community organizations, which are often operating on tight budgets, in the field, and who make the difference for thousands and thousands of Canadians, are required to observe sound management practices, and they do.

They are required to have controls and to assess results, while a national program such as the transitional job creation fund was not even able to deliver the goods in 80% of the projects sampled.

For 70% of projects, there were no invoices or pay lists in support of expenditures. Of these project files, 66% contained no analysis or documentation. In 36% of cases where the amounts had been increased, no reason was indicated.

In politics, debates must not become personal. I do not doubt that the Minister of Human Resources Development is a fascinating and lovely woman. However, anyone administering an organization along the same lines as the minister's administration of her department would have been let go long ago.

Anyone in charge of a community group, of a business, of any kind of organization with results as terrible as these, of any self-respecting body with the least bit of organization, would have long ago been asked to resign. This is a most worrisome situation.

Before getting into the health aspect of the motion, I could give some other examples. According to the documents, at least seven projects in Quebec received approval and funding before they were even submitted. The same thing goes for 15 others elsewhere in Canada.

All manner of horror stories have prompted my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, a man generally recognized as responsible and highly knowledgeable about the Department of Human Resources Development—he has been the critic for it since June 1998—to call for the government to cast some light on this. Members of the opposition, in particular members of the Bloc Quebecois, have called on it to do so. The best approach is, of course, a public and general inquiry into all of the cases involved. This does not mean an investigation with a case by case report on all allegations that have come to our attention.

Before moving on to the health aspect, hon. members know that I cannot remain silent on the patronage in the form of nepotism, verging on misappropriation of funds, that went on in the Prime Minister's riding.

The Prime Minister, who had never totally abandoned the tradition of patronage that has always characterized successive Liberal governments, has apparently resumed the habit. With all the subtlety of which he is capable, which we have seen at work this past weekend, the Prime Minister said to himself “Everybody wants to get on board the gravy train, and the gravy train stops at Shawinigan”.

How many investigations are currently under way in Shawinigan? My colleague, the member for Frontenac—Mégantic could tell me. I think they are up to four.

What can we say about what happened in Rosemont? Rosemont is in the centre of Montreal, and Montreal has undergone a process of industrial obsolence, leading all the partners to take action to create a new knowledge based economy. How did a case of grants in Rosemont end up in Shawinigan?

Do you not think this is a nasty tradition of patronage, thievery, cronyism and mishandling of funds, which has not been seen for a long time on such a scale, but which has always been a Liberal trademark?

That said, members understand the essence of the motion. The aim of it is to have the $1.5 billion that would normally go as additional funding for the grants and contributions programs go instead to transfer payments.

Many people in Quebec and Canada have called for the restoration of transfer payments. For example, at the premiers conference in Hull at the end of January, all the premiers, New Democrat, Conservative or Liberal—do not fool yourself that Brian Tobin, who was here on budget night, does not want it—called for the restoration of the transfer payments.

The transfer payments are the most eloquent evidence of federalist hegemony, of federalism that could care less about the provinces. I would like to mention some figures compiled by the hard working Bloc Quebecois researchers, whom I take this opportunity to thank, including Thierry Bransi, who recently joined our team. These figures are based on the official figures of the Department of Finance.

Since the 1994-95 fiscal year, the federal government made major cuts to cash payments. In 1999-2000, these cash payments totalled $14.5 billion, compared to $18.7 billion for the 1994-95 fiscal year. This means that cuts of $4.2 billion were made to cash payments.

I said it a number of times in this House, Madam Speaker, and I believe you were in the Chair when I did. I apologize for repeating it and I would not want you to think that I always say the same thing. However, in politics it is sometime necessary to repeat the same thing over and over again to get the message across. We must be patient with government members. Liberal government members have great human qualities, but they are not always very courageous. They are not very energetic when it comes to calling their government to order.

Out of this annual amount of $1.5 billion in transfer payments that we are asking for, that the Reform Party motion proposes, $500 million should go to Quebec for health. As members may recall, the Quebec premier said at the first ministers' conference that this was the amount for transfer payments.

I want to make it very clear for our fellow citizens and explain that, historically, when we talked about transfer payments, we were referring to the established programs financing and to the Canada assistance plan. In 1994, the Liberal government, claiming that this would provide greater flexibility to the provinces in the use of these funds, created the Canada social transfer for health and social programs.

This Canada social transfer is more or less the funding available for post-secondary education, health and income security. For health alone, Quebec should receive $500 million if the health component of the transfer payments were restored to its 1994-95 level.

Five hundred million dollars is not inconsequential. It is an amount that could be put to very good use by the Government of Quebec. It corresponds to the natural growth in Quebec's health and social services system. If, in 2001, we want to provide exactly the same health services we are now providing to Quebecers—CLSCs, hospitals, long term care—the natural growth is $500 million.

We will not have bought any new equipment, eliminated the deficit, or added any new services. The natural growth of the system is such that, in 2001, we will be exactly where we are in 2000.

I would like to tell the House what $500 million represents in the health and social services system. The $500 million we should be getting from the federal government for the health budget corresponds to one quarter of the budget for hospitals in Montreal.

During last week's break, I met with hospital administrators. Things are not easy. They are facing some tremendous challenges. The Government of Quebec has put a considerable amount into Quebec's health care system but there are still needs that are not being met. Additional staff are also needed.

So the $500 million is one quarter of the budget for hospitals in Montreal. It is one half of the budget for all CLSCs in Quebec. The innovative CLSC formula of delivering front-line services is well known. From the cradle to the grave, people can benefit from the services provided by the CLSCs, whether it is for home support, for community services, or for blood sampling, which is no longer done in hospitals. The purpose of this strategy is to relieve the pressure in our hospitals.

I must remind members that the $500 million we are asking for represents the total budget for home support services. As I have said before, and I think it is worth repeating, there is a new trend whereby people want to stay in their community as long as possible.

I see people who are getting closer and closer to their golden years. Some of our parliamentary colleagues are getting there. I am thinking of our colleague from Willowdale—

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Careful.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

—the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions—

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

You are no spring chicken yourself.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

I will turn 38 on May 13. I am certainly not a senior citizen.

Seniors are those over 60 years of age. Some of our colleagues have reached or are about to reach that stage, even though they are still very alert and active, as we can see every day. These people will want to stay in their community. It is important that the government invest in home support services.

I see my time has expired and I thank you for your attention. I call on all members to vote in favour of the motion. Again, I would like cash transfers to be restored and I also would like the Liberals to spare us having to watch the disgusting spectacle of them fight their leadership war in public. We do not need that.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for the support he expressed for the opposition day motion. I listened quite carefully to what he had to say.

Prior to the 1997 election the Liberals funnelled grants and contributions into some Quebec ridings, particularly the types of ridings where they felt obviously that they would get a payback if they put money into them. Now they have added $1.5 billion to the grants and contributions.

We know the Liberal priority is politics before what is best for Canadians. The number one priority of Canadians is of course health care.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

What profession are you in?

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

The parliamentary secretary is not happy with me saying that, but that is the way I feel about it. Does the increase in grants and contributions in the 2000 budget signal that the government is preparing to do the same thing all over again?

I have a question for the Bloc member. We are looking at pre-election politics now. We are maybe only a year away from the next election. What is the Bloc planning to do if and when this strategy on the part of the Liberal government starts to exhibit itself all over again, not that we ever lost it but that we may see a peak of activity again. What is the Bloc's strategy to try to offset that?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, and one of the best I have ever been asked.

As the hon. member is aware, the Bloc Quebecois is the strongest political force in Quebec, with 44% of the seats. Under the skilful leadership of the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who is, let us not forget, the most popular federal political leader in Quebec, we are going to continue to defend the interests of Quebec. As hon. members are well aware, the Liberal Party has always been characterized by a tradition of nepotism, patronage, mishandling of funds, and theft.

Not all Liberals are like that. There are some honest people in the Liberal Party. I would not like to be unparliamentary, but hon. members will agree. I believe that the best guarantee one can give to Quebecers is to have a political party like the Bloc Quebecois. This is important. We are wholly dedicated to defending the interests of Quebec, with clear funding.

The Bloc Quebecois is there so that no matter what the circumstances, whenever there is a bill, whenever there are policies to be evaluated, we can ensure that there is no competition with the allegiance to New Brunswick, to Saskatchewan, to British Columbia, because all of the Bloc Quebecois MPs, not being members of a traditional national party, are here to defend the interests of Quebecers.

I believe the best thing that can be hoped for is for Quebecers to continue to have confidence in the first federal political force in Quebec, that is the Bloc Quebecois, as they have in two elections already. I believe that it will continue to be present in the next election.

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

Madam Speaker, I hear the Bloc Quebecois members tell us they are the purest of the pure, while we are supposed to be a party of thieves. This is completely unparliamentary.

This shows a lack of respect for the people defending the interests of Quebec just as vigorously as the people from the Bloc. But they are the good Quebecers. People like me, who live in Quebec, whose children are there, who contribute to Quebec—I myself spent nine years in the National Assembly—we are bad Quebecers.

Listen to the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve telling us how he needs another $500 million or $1 billion for hospitals. That takes a heck of a lot of gall. He is talking about $500 million, which represents one quarter of the budget for hospitals in Quebec. And then we have Mr. Landry, the great PQ bagman, who busts his britches daily, and who left $841 million sitting in a bank, not in Quebec, but in Toronto, in the Toronto Dominion Bank.

So, if $500 million represents one quarter of the budget for hospitals, $841 million, according to my calculations, represents 42% of the budget.

Quebec nurses went out on strike. They were out in the streets for weeks saying “We are badly paid, the equipment is out of date”—

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

The question.

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

Listen to them, they are not prepared to hear the truth. We are thieves, but we do not insult them, we do not talk of thievery. Each time we say something to them, they are not happy.

The result is that the people of Quebec cannot even get cancer treatment. They have to go to the States. There are waiting lists months long, and $841 million was left in a bank in Ontario. What is more, Mr. Landry himself has admitted “It is not a matter of money. It is a matter of hospital management”. He told us it was not a matter of money, and today he says he needs $500 million. Get the money out of Toronto. Send it to Quebec City. Use it.

They have to stop insulting people. They say they are the good Quebecers, and we are the bad Quebecers. I cannot accept that. I find that really insulting.

Let them take the money out the bank in Toronto, send it to Quebec City to meet the needs of hospitals.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I only have one thing to say to the hon. member. Where was he, this great protector of Quebec's interests, when his government unilaterally cut into transfers to the provinces? Where was the hon. member when the time came to protect Quebecers against Bill C-20? What word describes the current situation where several RCMP investigations are being conducted in the Prime Minister's riding? How do we define the practice of diverting funds from the riding of Rosemont to Shawinigan?

Stop displaying this holier-than-thou attitude and speak up when money is diverted. You are a prime example of those Quebecers at the federal level, of those who remain silent when the Liberal Party is in office, but who do not hesitate to betray Quebecers when the time comes to protect their interests.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is here and will continue to be here. Thank goodness the Bloc Quebecois is in this House and will be there at the next federal election.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to tone it down just a little bit here. I think they both have valid points and they should debate this out.

I actually find this quite humourous, especially coming from the government. The member is quite right. There is no doubt that the government has cut transfer payments to the provinces with regard to the health care system. When the provinces signed into this system they were guaranteed a 50:50 split. Now we are down to about 13%.

What I would like to ask the member is this. Although we—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please. I would ask members from both sides to please listen to the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap, who now has the floor.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I must congratulate the province of Quebec, even though I may disagree with that government on many issues. With regard to the hepatitis C victims, the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec have seen fit to at least address payment to these victims.

Has the member done any calculations as to how much money the so-called caring, sharing Liberal government has saved by not paying the victims, by just paying the lawyers and allowing the victims to do without? I would like to have an opinion from the member on this if I could.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to dedicate my reply to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. The hepatitis C issue is another example of this government's insensitivity and groveling. The government's decision was the ultimate blow to hep C victims.

What was the number one recommendation in the Krever report? That all victims be compensated, regardless of fault. Once again, this government let them down and no Liberal voice, whether from Quebec or elsewhere, defended these people.

I say shame on this government. Shame on this bunch of sheep and followers.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

I have seen a lot of opposition day motions in the three years that I have been in the House but I have to say that this one today from the Reform Party really takes the cake.

Looking at this motion and at the record of the Reform Party after advocating and endorsing massive cuts to our social infrastructure, it seems to me that it is the height of hypocrisy to suddenly come out in favour of increasing the Canada health and social transfer purse.

Let us be very clear. The real intent of the Reform Party with this motion today is to undermine federal spending, a long term strategy that hurts Canadians rather than helping them.

The Reform Party members do not care about the CHST. They are always campaigning against it and campaigning to cut it. They do not care about cuts to health care that are so massive that they threaten our most treasured social program, health care, and endanger the lives of Canadians who are forced to wait for essential services in Canada. Even worse, it is the Reform Party that has supported a two-tier health care system. It supports privatization. It has consistently supported Draconian cuts to our social infrastructure in the name of deficit cutting. It has consistently advocated diverting dollars needed to repair our social support into tax cuts. Let us be very clear that the tax cuts which it advocates favour the rich over the poor.

Let us make no mistake. Reformers are not concerned about increasing the CHST purse. They are attempting to score political points by using the scandal at HRDC to attack all federal spending.

Where was the Reform Party after the budget? The NDP was here every single day during question period going after the government, making it accountable on health care spending and pointing out the deficit that existed. Strangely, I do not remember the Reform Party ever raising questions about the budget and health care. It had its own little campaign going on. It suddenly appears and it is now supporting the Canada health and social transfer.

There was an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on March 11. I hope Reform members will listen to this because it is an article written by one of their own members, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, a leadership candidate. In the article he talks about health care and says:

Therefore, the system needs more money. Raising taxes is not an option, nor is taking large sums from other government programs that are already cash-strapped.

This was said by a Reform Party member. Let us sort this out. I think the Reform Party needs to have a caucus meeting to determine exactly what its position is. Is it the position of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca or is it the position from the critic for HRDC?

The member goes on to say:

However, new resources can be assessed by amending the Canada Health Act to allow private clinics and services paid for by private money only. No public funds are used in the private clinics. People assessing private services would no longer be draining the public system, thereby leaving more money and better care for those still in the public system. The private system would in effect be strengthening the public system.

That is the position of the Reform Party and this motion before us today is really a bogus motion.

Let us dwell for a moment on the $1.5 billion that the Reform Party is seeking to defer, not just from grants and contributions in HRDC but from all other government programs as a result of any increase in the budget. Exactly what would that include? What is it that the Reform Party is advocating, which it says should be diverted but which really means cut, in order to put this $1.5 billion back into the CHST?

It would include $560,000 for first nations policing programs. It would support contributions to the Canadian Blood Services of $355,000. It would mean taking $1.2 million away from the safer community initiative, something that is very important to my riding. What about the contributions to the youth justice renewal fund, something that the Reform Party has been supporting? These are the kinds of programs the Reform Party is advocating be cut, be slashed, in order to make a political point of now suddenly being in favour of increasing the Canada health and social transfer.

Many of these programs are good programs and they have been put in jeopardy by Liberal mismanagement. The answer is not to attack the programs. We believe the answer is to end the Liberal mismanagement and the politicization that has taken place.

As New Democrats we have supported job creation. We have been very clear on that. We support student employment. We support job development in areas of high unemployment. What we do not support, however, is the Liberals making a mockery of these programs through gross mismanagement. We do not support programs being approved for political purposes, as the mounting evidence clearly shows.

How many RCMP investigations do we have now? There is no question—and this is where we would agree with the Reform Party—that we absolutely need to have an independent public inquiry to immediately get to the bottom of the Liberal slush funds, the corporate bailouts and the corruption that has taken place.

We need to fix these programs so they can end up benefiting Canadians who need them. However, Reform's call to divert federal spending increases fails to address the problem and fails to hold the Liberals accountable for perpetuating those problems we are trying to deal with. In fact the government has set itself up and in doing so has impugned public servants and the entire social infrastructure. The cynicism that has grown in the Canadian public's mind has come about because of this mismanagement.

We believe that the CHST should be increased by $1.5 billion, not in diverted dollars but as a repayment of the billions of dollars that this government has taken from health care, education, social welfare and social programs since it came to power in 1993.

Canadians know from their own real experience what has happened to the health care system. They know what has happened as a result of those lost federal dollars over the last six years. We have patients living in hospital corridors because there are no beds available. We have rural and, in fact, urban areas that have a critical shortage of nurses and other health care providers. We have women and families who are forced to take responsibility for providing home care because the health system is failing.

We also know that Canadians are paying more out of their own pockets for health care than they ever were before. Why? Because the government has taken $21.5 billion from transfer payments to the provinces for health and other social programs. Despite its own glowing words of putting money back into health care in the last budget, the real evidence shows that for every dollar spent on tax cuts only a piddling two cents went into the health care system. Is it any wonder then that more and more Canadians are paying out of their own pockets for health care and that it is on the rise?

Our federal government used to pay 50% of health care. It was a partnership between the provinces and the federal government. It is no longer a partnership. It is a total disgrace and Canadians know that. We know that the 50% has now dwindled to 14% in the most recent budget. This Reform motion really does not change that.

The real threat to our health care system is the two-tier system and privatization. The biggest threat in that regard is the Reform Party which is crusading for privatization. We see it in Alberta, in Ontario, from its own leadership candidates and from its members here in the House. They have been aided and abetted by a government in power that simply does not have the guts to stand up and stop what is going on, to say clearly to Alberta, to Ontario and to privatization that it will not stand for it and that it will see this stopped.

We in the NDP have been very clear that we want to see a restoration of public funds. We want to see federal funds go back to 25%. I ask the Reform Party if it is prepared to support that. If it is committed to the CHST, is it prepared to support our call that it at least go back to 25% of federal funding and increase after that?

In conclusion, the problem with this motion is that it has no credibility. It will not solve the problem for HRDC. It will not even help medicare. It certainly will not help the Reform Party as it desperately tries to gain trust with Canadians on health care.

This motion simply will not do it. That is why we in the NDP will not support it. We will continue to go after the government to make it accountable on health care. We will also expose the Reform Party for really what is a very phoney motion.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to what the member said. I can tell her that half of what she was saying is not right.

It is quite interesting. She said that she is not going to support the motion on the increase that is coming from one side to the other side which requires urgent attention, which is health care. In the same breath she wanted the Reform Party to ask that more money be put into CHST.

Where does the hon. member think the money is going to come from? Will it be by raising more taxes, taxing the poor, taxing the mothers who are staying home? Where does she expect all this money to come from? She knows very well that it is the mismanaged HRDC program where she sees all this money going down the tube. Why will this money not be more effectively used to address the health care issue? Why would she advocate raising taxes and putting more burden on Canadians when we could use other funds? Perhaps she could clarify that situation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good and fair question.

We in the NDP are not prepared to say that we are going to rob other programs such as policing programs, safer communities, aboriginal programs, status of women programs. We are not prepared, to use the Reform words, to divert funds from those programs, to rob Peter to pay Paul, in order to make it look like more money is going into health care.

The member raised the question of where that money should come from. The reality is the government has had the biggest budgetary surplus that we have probably seen in Canadian history, $100 billion. We have been very clear in our position. In fact my hon. colleague who will be speaking after me put out an excellent minority report detailing where those funds should be reinvested: in health care, in education, in social welfare, in ending poverty, in housing. We have been very clear about that.

We do not support the kinds of massive tax cuts that really only put pennies in people's pockets while at the same time they spend 30% more on private health care as a result of the demise of our health care system. I hope that answers the hon. member's question.

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

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member. Her speech has been one of the best ones I have heard in the Chamber this morning. She sees the Reform members for what they are.

We transferred emergency funds to the provinces. The province of Quebec for instance took $700 million and put it into a savings account in the Toronto-Dominion Bank where it is collecting interest right now. We transferred $1.3 billion to Ontario. Mike Harris, the kissing cousin of the Reform Party, said that Ontario would immediately spend every cent of that money. Ontario spent $750 million of it and $556 million is still sitting in a savings account.

What process would the hon. member see being put in place to make the provinces spend the money the federal government transfers to them for health care?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. It is a good question as well.

We are not going to fall into the trap of beating up on the provinces in order to divert attention and responsibility away from the federal government. It seems to me that if we had a genuine federal-provincial partnership, if we had a federal government that had not lost credibility on medicare by opting out of all the funds practically, down to 14%, then the provinces would not be running for cover and doing whatever they wanted to do. There would be a real partnership.

It seems to me that the onus goes back to the government. It must show that it has the leadership, initiative and political will to create a kind of federalism where there is a partnership with the provinces, where there is a buy-in with provincial governments to use those funds for health care or education. I would ask the member to answer his own question about the failure of how those transfers take place.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see the member for Wild Rose in the House. It is good to see him back after a bit of an absence. I saw him starring in a television program a few weeks ago. I had not seen him for a while.

I want to say a few words in the debate today. The Reform Party motion says that the House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion and to forgo the $1.5 billion increase to federal grants, services and contributions in this year's budget. On the surface that may sound like a perfectly reasonable motion but I have a couple of problems with it.

In looking at the grants and contributions that the Reform Party wants to terminate, what it is advocating is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I came across some very interesting programs that are supported by the vast majority of Canadians.

For example, it wants to terminate the increase of $560,000 to the first nations policing program. There are 12 first nations in my riding. They are very interested in increased funding for policing on those Indian reserves. I see the member for Wild Rose hanging his head in shame. I know he agrees with me too because he has first nations in his riding. Perhaps that is why he is not speaking in this debate. The Reform Party wants to eliminate this important program in terms of the funding increase in the budget.

Also, the Reform Party wants to eliminate the increase of $355,000 in the contribution to the Canadian blood service program. Why would it want to terminate that? Why does it want to decrease its budget by $355,000?

Another item the Reform Party wants to get rid of is the $12.3 million contribution in support of the youth justice renewal fund. This is youth justice renewal for young offenders across the country and it wants to decrease that by $12.3 million which the Minister of Finance had in his budget.

There is another one. The Reform Party wants to eliminate as well the $1.2 million contribution in support of the safer communities initiative.

Why does the Reform Party want to decrease a lot of very good government programs that are serving the people of this country in order to put more money into health care? There is a huge surplus. This country can afford not just the $1.5 billion it is talking about but it can afford more than that in terms increasing health care funds.

As a matter of fact, since the Liberal Party took power in 1993, there has been a cutback of over $21 billion in total funding from transfers to the provinces for health care and education. Spending this year will be $3.3 billion lower than it was in 1993 when the Liberal Party was elected.

On the health side, the Reform Party is saying to go halfway back to where the Liberals were in 1993 despite the fact that government revenues have skyrocketed. We have a surplus in the next five years of $100 billion plus and the Reform Party wants to put back in only half the money which the Liberals took away in 1993. It does not even factor in the inflationary costs in the health care system.

This motion falls far short of what parliament should be endorsing in terms of health care and what parliament should endorse for public spending and expenditures for other government programs across the board.

I look across the way at the Liberals and I wonder how the party of Paul Martin, Sr., Lester Pearson and other social reformers could support the present Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. They have cut back on social services and social programs in a way that is so much more radical than what Brian Mulroney and the Tories ever did.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

With pride.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

With pride, says the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. He says with pride government members support these cutbacks to the health care system by the Minister of Finance.

I invite the minister to go to Regina, Kamsack, Moose Jaw and many other places in Saskatchewan and say that he is proud of these cutbacks, that he is proud of the consequences of the cutbacks to health care. I can show him emergency rooms where people are lined up, where people are on waiting lists for surgery. Hospitals have closed because of the cutbacks in federal spending. The minister across the way said the government is doing that with pride and with pride it is cutting back on transfers to the provinces.

I would like to see the minister get up in the question and answer period in a few minutes and explain why he is so proud of the cutbacks that are hurting people. Certainly that is not what this parliament had decided many years ago in terms of spending in this particular area. And he said it was done with pride.

The cutbacks are more draconian than what we saw with the Tories under Brian Mulroney or previous Tory governments. One of the consequences of these cutbacks will be the initiation of private, two tier Americanized medicare. We are seeing that today in the province of Alberta with Ralph Klein and Bill 11. One reason he is doing it is because of the tremendous cutbacks by the federal government. If it happens in Alberta, it will happen in Ontario with Mike Harris. It will spread across the country because of the cutbacks by the federal government in terms of transfers to the provinces for health care.

The budget a few weeks ago had a $58 billion tax cut. Our party is saying that some cuts in taxes are needed, but about 25% of the government surplus should go into tax cuts and about 75% in the program expenditures on behalf of ordinary people. The tax cut should be the reduction of the GST.

I noticed at the Liberal convention a couple of days ago that the ordinary delegates passed a motion to start cutting back on the GST. Again the government is not listening in terms of its tax cut package.

Most of the surplus should be going into government programs and government spending, in particular into health care. We are saying that over the next couple of years there should be an increase in transfers of $5.5 billion that will eventually get us up to the federal government sharing the spending on a 50:50 basis with the provinces in terms of health care.

When medicare was first introduced the federal government paid 50 cents on the dollar and the provinces paid 50 cents on the dollar for health care. Today under a so-called Liberal government, the federal government is paying some 13 cents or 14 cents in terms of cash transfers. In terms of cash transfers, that is 13% or 14%. It is not just me who is saying that. Every premier is saying it. The premiers are saying that we will need a massive injection of federal money to save the health care system.

We all know that health care is now the most important issue facing the country. We all hear about it. Liberal delegates were saying it the other day. The public opinion polls are saying it. Even the Reform Party is getting on the bandwagon and is talking about health care.

We will have to put some federal money into the system to save health care in addition to what has been done already. We have the money and the resources to do it. If we do not do it, we will end up with a two tier system that will lead to the erosion and the destruction of medicare and health care.

There are a lot of people advocating it. Just the other day the Reform Party's finance critic said on CBC television that we should be looking at some private sector solutions to health care. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said a similar thing in the press a few days ago. Ralph Klein is saying the same thing in the province of Alberta. Here we have a party in the movement that is now advocating two tier health care and it is being aided and abetted by the federal government, which has cut back massively in terms of transfers to the provinces for health care and education.

In my province of Saskatchewan alone over the next four years under this budget there will only be an additional $80 million going into health care from the federal government. That is enough to keep our health care system going for three or four days. That is one reason in our province, like any other province, there is a great strain on the system. There have been cutbacks in the services that should be provided. There are waiting lists for surgery, lineups in emergency rooms and so on.

I appeal to the government to look very seriously at substantially increasing transfers to the provinces for health care and education.