Debates of March 20th, 2000

Supply

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I would interpret from the remarks of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle that he will not be supporting the Reform motion, and I congratulate him for that.

He mentioned some of the programs that would be cut implicitly by the motion that was presented by the Reform Party. I will name a few, for those who are interested in what is in the budget.

For example, there is an additional contribution of $900 million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which helps universities and research hospitals acquire the infrastructure they need to help prepare our economy and to prepare Canadians for the new world in which we live.

Another example is the $900 million which will go to fund research chairs for new positions in universities and colleges so that we can be at the leading edge of new technologies and attract and keep the best and the brightest.

Another example is the $160 million for Genome Canada, which will put us at the leading edge of the biotechnological thrust in which Canada will have a very competitive position.

These are all grants and contributions. This is not some obtuse theory. This is what is in the budget. This is what would be cut if the Reform Party's motion went forward. I could go on and on.

Another example is the $700 million for the environment, which will be dealt with through grants and contributions so that we will have clean air and clean water, and we will be able to prepare ourselves to eliminate greenhouse gases and meet our Kyoto commitments.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle talked about topping up the CHST, which of course he knows is at an all-time high. In fact, the federal contribution is around 32%. He mentioned reducing the GST and topping up the CHST. Where would he find the money? If he were to reduce the GST and top up the CHST, how would the arithmetic work?

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

Madam Speaker, I guess it depends on where one's priorities lie.

The member sits on the finance committee as well. The report of the finance committee indicated that about a quarter of the surplus should have been spent on tax reduction, namely, the reduction of the GST. That is what our party recommended to the Minister of Finance.

The government went a different way. It decided to reduce taxes by $58 billion over five years, doing it in a number of ways: through a reduction of corporate income taxes, a reduction in personal income taxes, a change in the capital gains tax, whereby we will have to pay tax on only two-thirds of the capital gains as opposed to three-quarters, and through a number of other tax measures and changes. We had a difference in philosophy in terms of what taxes should be reduced.

I remind the member that a resolution was passed at the Liberal convention stating that the GST should be reduced and gradually eliminated. That is what our party is saying. However, for some reason the Minister of Finance did not listen to that advice.

That is where we would get the money. We would get the money by putting less money into tax reduction and more money into the CHST. A tax reduction of $58 billion is going too far in terms of a fair breakdown among reducing taxes, increasing government spending on health and education and reducing the national debt.

The government is out of sync in terms of public opinion. We are advocating getting rid of the GST, reducing it a point at a time and putting more money into transfers to the provinces for health and education. That is what most people want.

If I may add, that is why the Reform Party is so out of sync. It is advocating cutting back many worthwhile government programs and putting a smaller amount into transfers for the provinces and health care and then opening up a system for the private sector, in effect creating a two-tier health care system, or the Americanization of our health care system, which is not the way the Canadian people want to go, even in the province of Alberta.

I see that the member for Wild Rose wants to confirm that fact, so I cede the floor to him.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member missed me. I would hate to think that I was gone and nobody missed me from this place. However, I do not want him to get too encouraged by anything I might say because there will be ice skating in Hades before I agree with anything the member would have to say in terms of the policies of the nation. All I have to do is look at the oblivion that British Columbia and Ontario under Bob Rae and other NDP governments in the past have suffered from the likes of this kind of thinking.

Instead of ranting on about what the Reform Party would do, why does the member not speak out? Why does his party not speak out on such films as Bubbles Galore , which was on CBC the other night? The government is wasting millions and millions of dollars on feely, touchy, fuzzy stuff that the NDP and Liberals love to pieces. When are they going to speak out against that kind of garbage?

It is confirmation of your stupidity. If you had any brains you would not laugh, you idiot.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please.

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

Madam Speaker, I will answer the question. While the member was watching Bubbles Galore and sipping champagne, I was studying the health care system. I did not see the film. He was watching Bubbles Galore , but I was not watching it, so I really cannot comment on the film.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there not something in the rules which says that we should not be hollering derogatory names back and forth across the floor? I do not think it helps us in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Even though the hon. member does not really have a point of order, I would agree with her that it would be much better if all remarks were addressed through the Chair, rather than across the floor.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, after that bit of dialogue I am really lost for words. I do not know how to follow it. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi. I also want to say that the PC Party supports this motion. I have heard a lot of comments from the NDP saying that it does not support the motion. I wonder why NDP members do not support the specifics of the motion put forward by the member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

The motion states:

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.

The reasoning behind that was because of the fiasco that is going on in HRDC.

I do not think any responsible member of parliament would say that the member for Calgary—Nose Hill or any other member who supports this motion is cherry picking from HRDC or any other area. This would be a general investment of $1.5 billion in the CHST, which is needed because of government cutbacks. The motion also proposes to hold back $1.5 billion from federal grants and contributions. As every member of the House knows, HRDC has proven that it is irresponsible and not able to control its budget.

It is important to understand that this is not pointing to HRDC offices in individual ridings. This is not saying that there is not a lot of good work being done by HRDC in individual ridings. The riding I represent, South Shore, has an HRDC office in Bridgewater and another one in Shelburne. Those offices do a lot of good work. They have excellent people working in them. They have put forward some good assistance to businesses in the South Shore riding and in the province of Nova Scotia in general. However, there has been a serious lack of leadership by the minister of HRDC, and the previous minister I should add. There are 19 police investigations ongoing, criminal investigations, and the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister decided when they brought the budget down that they would reward the minister of HRDC. It is mind-boggling. It is dumbfounding.

Even hon. members of the NDP who spoke to this motion must find it rather ludicrous that there is a department in turmoil and yet its budget has been increased. The government said “Yes, we know it is in trouble. We are going to give it more money to waste”.

Let us be honest. It is not the regional offices; it is the management, the top brass at HRDC. Those are the people who allowed this to happen. Fifteen per cent of the 459 audited grants did not even include an application form. Eleven per cent did not include a budget proposal. Eleven per cent did not contain any expected results. Twenty-five per cent did not say for which type of activity the money would be used.

That money came out of our pockets and the pockets of our constituents. That money came from the taxpayers of Canada and we have an obligation, both as opposition members of parliament and as government members, to make sure this money is spent wisely.

I think we should be responsible. I think we should be understanding. I think we should realize that everyone is not perfect, that all departments are not perfect and that individuals make mistakes, but we should also have a system of checks and balances in place so that when those mistakes are made they are corrected.

To add $1.5 billion to a $13 billion budget as a reward for incompetence is inconceivable. It is an insult to the taxpayers of Canada.

At the same time, the PC Party supports the existence of programs designed to help young Canadians get their first job and to help less fortunate people such as the handicapped enter the job market. The TJF was put in place to help areas of high unemployment in the regions that were hit very hard by reforms made to employment insurance in 1996 by this government.

We support sensible programming. We support programs which are formulated in such a way as to hit areas of high unemployment, the people and the groups in society that are less fortunate and those who have a more difficult time entering the job market.

This is not about standing and saying that everything in HRDC is bad. It is not about saying that all HRDC regional offices are bad. This is about understanding what has gone on in HRDC and asking why, when we have a health care crisis and an education crisis in this country, we would take $1.5 billion extra and put it in HRDC when we need it desperately in the Canada health and social transfer.

This is not a complex issue. Let us look at the Liberals' reaction to it. The Prime Minister tried to minimize this huge fiasco by saying in the House on February 9, 2000 that only $251.50 caused problems. That is a direct quote from the Prime Minister. I am still waiting for the translation because I know I lost something in the translation. I still have not figured it out, but this is what the Prime Minister said and all the Liberal members on the government side were nodding and agreeing that $251.51 caused problems. It is just amazing.

We are now aware that there are at least 19 police investigations including three in the Prime Minister's own riding. It is unforgivable that the Prime Minister and his cabinet can stand and defend this type of government, this type of policy, in a country where taxpayer dollars are being spent.

Last week the president of Canada Employment and Immigration unionized employees of HRDC held a press conference on Parliament Hill. He said that the governing party and the cuts of over 5,000 jobs at HRDC were to blame for the mess, and that political influence caused expediency in the approval of the process of grants and contributions.

For instance, the department accepted to talk to an unregistered lobbyist, Mr. René Fugère, a good friend of the Prime Minister, already under investigation by the RCMP. Grants were awarded to the riding of the HRDC minister, even if her riding did not qualify for the benefit grants under the TJF criteria.

Allegations are made of slush funds. We know several companies that received grants gave large donations to the governing party. Surely Canadians deserve the truth in all these allegations. Surely even the government has to recognize the fact that this is not its money, that this is the money of Canadians.

When Canadians have a question they deserve an answer. No government in the history of the country has had 19 ongoing criminal investigations at once. It has never happened before. It has never happened before that we have had three criminal investigations in the riding of the Prime Minister of Canada. It is time that we got some solid answers. It is time that we saw some responsibility.

I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi. Obviously he will go into more detail on the Canada health and social transfer aspect of the issue. Before I sit down I would like some reaction from the government benches that they accept responsibility for this fiasco, that they are the government, and that the Prime Minister will stand some day to clear the issue in the House of Commons.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, with respect, I think the member for South Shore is somewhat confused about the motion. Frankly I am not surprised because I was as confused earlier as many other members of the House.

When I asked the member for Calgary—Nose Hill earlier in this debate whether she would cut HRDC she responded by saying no and indicating that there were other elements in the federal budget under grants and contributions that should be cut. She acknowledged that some of the work was of real benefit to Canadians as they make the transition into the workforce.

I would like to point out what would really be cuts in grants and contributions if we accepted the Reform Party motion. They would cut $900 million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation. They would cut $900 million for 2,000 research chairs in our universities so we can have the best and brightest in Canada and prepare Canadians for the economy of the future. They would also cut $160 million to Genome Canada, a biotechnology institution that is on the leading edge of research in this area. They would also cut $700 million for environmental improvements so that we could have cleaner air and cleaner water and could prepare ourselves to reduce greenhouse gases.

I think the member for South Shore, knowing this, would realize that there would be significant cuts in some very desirable programs. Maybe he would like to reflect on this in his answer.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's statement. However I can only speak to the motion that is before us. There is none of that in the motion which I read at the beginning of my speech. I will read it again:

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.

That is a general statement. That is not a specific statement. I am specifically looking at HRDC. That is the $1.5 billion increase. There is no other $1.5 billion increase in the federal budget. It is specific to that department. It is not specific to certain elements of that department. It is specific to the general budget of that department.

The basis of my deliberations is that we have a department that is out of control. The department should have but apparently has not embarrassed the minister and the former minister responsible for it. There are 19 ongoing police investigations, three of which are in the Prime Minister's riding. We should not reward incompetence. We should slap incompetence down and say “Clean up your books and come back to us again. In the meantime we are going to cut your budget. We are not going to increase it”.

That is not saying that there are not good programs within HRDC. That is saying that we do not send good money after bad.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the intervention of the hon. member for South Shore. When I listened to the babble from the member for Etobicoke North I could not help but be struck by the fact that in his selective choice of grants, which he said might be victims of our motion, he did not make any mention of some of the grantees who have been living off the public trough for most of human memory in the country, people like SNC-Lavalin and Bombardier. There was never a whisper about them.

In line with what the member for South Shore was saying, let us get back specifically to HRDC grants. Perhaps he is unique, outside our party in the House, in that he realizes we have been getting a snow job from the minister of HRDC who says that all the money that has been frittered away has been going to the disadvantaged, the halt, the blind, the widows and the orphans. It fair makes me weep, it does. Most of it has been going to the disadvantaged politically, to the Liberal Party.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the question of other grants outside HRDC to see if he might raise some other examples.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, specifically to the statement by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, obviously there are other areas in which the government has been deficient.

What I have been trying to deal with has strictly been HRDC. There is chaos in the department. There is a meltdown in the department. Someone needs to be responsible. That person is the department head, the minister and the Prime Minister.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to a motion which, I think, manages to tie two issues of great concern to Canadians, namely the numerous scandals at Human Resources Development Canada and health care.

Regarding HRDC, in our ridings, everyone is talking about the dozens of RCMP investigations which are under way. This issue is about arbitrary political interference, about numbered companies that received grants without ever delivering the goods and about a government that, once again, is poised to give, not $1,5 million, but $1,5 billion to the same department.

This happens at a time when hospitals across the country—and our regional hospital in particular—are overloaded. People have to go outside the country for surgery. Who would have thought that, seven years ago, when the Liberals took office?

It is strange to see what happened at the convention last week-end. That convention was almost as popular in Quebec as “La petite vie”, which is a very popular television program. It was pitiful to see the Prime Minister calling on his friend Paul to reply to questions such as those on the increase in budgets at HRDC, where it is scandal after scandal.

It is not just Liberal MPs from Ontario who are in trouble. They are perhaps quicker than others to take in what is going on with the Prime Minister of Canada, with the Minister of Finance, on major issues. It is not possible for these people to ignore the fundamental needs of Canadians.

In its stupidity, the federal government prefers to create more programs, rather than meet the needs of provinces. It is going to stick its oar in with the millennium scholarships, but it is common knowledge that the provinces are able to run these sectors.

It is even going to interfere in health care, when there are long waiting lists for operations. Cancer patients face delays of two, four, five, six or eight months, which is terrible for families and for the patients themselves.

All the government can think to do is to keep the caucus on a short leash and make no bones about it. How does one go about getting rid of a Prime Minister who, not just in the case of Human Resources Development Canada, but in the case of the budget, is determined to interfere in all sectors of provincial jurisdiction?

For his part, the Minister of Finance is irresponsible for signing off on a budget that does not meet the real needs of Canadians. The Prime Minister says to the Minister of Finance “Paul, my friend, put so many millions in this sector, $1.5 billion for Human Resources Development Canada, so that we can continue our political meddling, and arrange for $2 million for one, and $1 million for another, and then we will collect during the next election campaign”.

All Canadians, including those who are English speaking, are beginning to see what this has produced, after 30 years of provocation by former Prime Minister Trudeau and the current Prime Minister. It has produced a country on the brink of dissension.

The figures prove it: 15% in the 1970 referendum; 49.4% in the last referendum. If there were referendums in Alberta and British Columbia, I am not sure it would not be higher still.

The provocation must end. The Minister of Finance has to stand up for himself and stop saying “yes” to the Prime Minister all the time, preparing budgets according to the political wishes and partisan desires of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance cannot go on through the coming months like the Prime Minister, because Canadians are beginning to understand all that the government has done, in addition to not having any timetable.

When we rise as Progressive Conservative members we are immediately met with “You left the country with a deficit”. That is a quick summary of the country's financial state. When Pierre Elliott Trudeau arrived, there was no debt. It grew to $18 billion in 1974 and to $284 billion later on. What counts in economics is the multiplier. He multiplied it by 11. We multiplied it by two. But we had a timetable.

We passed the free trade agreement. They all voted against it. They almost defeated us on it.

The GST, which will bring in $24 billion in revenues this year, not to mention the free trade agreement, which is very lucrative for the country, was not enough for the Minister of Finance. What he likes to do is pocket the money, Canadians' money, which he has arbitrarily decided to manage on our behalf. This is what the Minister of Finance has done.

He has to stop hiding behind the Prime Minister and launch his race for the leadership intimating that he performed miracles for Canada. He did not perform miracles, the previous government did by passing lucrative measures for the current government. But that was not enough for them.

Employment insurance yileds an annual surplus of $7 billion paid for by the workers. What Canadians want and what hopefully all opposition parties will propose in the next elections, is to give people their money back instead of creating new programs whose only objective is to give visibility to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance, both of whom spent the week-end grandstanding here in Ottawa.

People want money in their pockets. It is the only way to fight poverty. Right now, the government is not fighting poverty, it is fighting the poor. Canadians have had more than enough of a government that spends most of its time quarrelling with the provinces.

In Quebec, we have been putting up with that for 30 years from the former Prime Minister and the current one. All those quarrels lead nowhere. Quebecers, like Albertans and all the others, from the maritimes and elsewhere, want peace and quiet and want to see the money back in their pockets when the government does not need it. This year, revenue from the GST will be $24 billion, the surplus the EI fund will be $7 billion and there will be further tax hikes, the 50th tax increase in seven years.

The government claims that it has been a good government, that it has honourably replaced the last Progressive Conservative government. I am ready to take all the Liberals on, based on our performance after nine years in power compared to theirs after seven years. We will look at the numbers and see which government was the best one, which one made the best choices. Give me any item on the government's agenda.

At a time when Quebecers wanted constitutional peace, as did all Canadians, the wondrous Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, with his obsession for the constitution—nothing else but that interests him—found a means for getting a bill passed for the sole purpose of disgusting everybody in Quebec and showing the rest of the country “Here we are teaching the Quebecers a lesson, here we are putting them in their place”.

I have some news for them. Fortunately, the government is going to change, maybe even this fall, because if it does not I can promise there will be a referendum in a few years. And the key argument of a very strong majority of Quebecers will be that bill of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Bill C-20, which does not even respect international standards as far as democracy is concerned. They will get a referendum and then some.

They are the ones responsible for the change in the outcome from 20% to 49.4%. They will be responsible for raising it from the 49.4% of 1995 to perhaps 65% in 2003 or 2004.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member is a Progressive Conservative or a Bloc Quebecois member, because he has reached the stage of promising us referendums. I have some good issues of conscience to raise with him.

He has referred to the HRDC scandal. I would like to remind him that the consent of the provinces is involved. Yesterday's La Presse quoted Mr. Pinard, the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, as saying that the Prime Minister was doing excellent work and was working on behalf of the people of Shawinigan.

I believe the hon. member ought instead to be congratulating us for bringing the unemployment rate down from 11.4% to 6.8%. He says that he is going to give us figures comparing what was done during their mandate and during ours.

I would just like to remind him of a few such figures: their 3% and 5% surtax to eliminate the deficit, which we took out in our budget three years ago, their non-indexation of tax tables, to try to fight the deficit.

If he wants figures, we will give him some.

We have reduced the debt to $573 billion. We have eliminated the deficit. Do they talk about the $42 billion deficit that we have eliminated? We have generally reduced taxes by 15%. There were no tax cuts when the Conservative were in power. There were tax increases. That is what they managed to do.

There was also an increase in unemployment, whereas under our government the unemployment rate has gone down to 6.8%. Those are eloquent figures.

In order to give a break to families, we cancelled the 3% and 5% surtax they slapped on to help eliminate the deficit. In 2000-2001, the transfer payments will reach an absolute high, contrary to what a Bloc member stated this morning when he said it was a shame.

With the transfer of tax points that provinces want us to increase, the transfers will reach a record high. The Conservatives never did anything of the kind.

The Quebec finance minister said it was not a matter of money but rather a matter of management. I would have liked to hear Bloc members tell us what Quebec has done with the $841 million kept in trust when people had to go to the United States to get health care because of a lack of money.

They talk about referendums. The hon. member mentioned the figure of 49%, yet we know that 25% of those who voted yes believed Quebec would stay within Canada. This is a Conservative saying this and promising another referendum? I seriously wonder if he should not change seat and go sit with the Bloc.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a few remarks for my colleague.

We are not the ones talking about referendums. For weeks, the government has been talking about a possible referendum. Who brought Bill C-20 before the House in order to lock up Quebec inside Canada? Not a single people can stand being in prison. A real confederation should be a partnership.

I must tell him that, with a bill such as the one that was passed by the House, we run the risk of having another referendum because of all this provocation.

The hon. member talked about the unemployment rate. The government has a $7 billion surplus, but people are not eligible for employment insurance any more. The eligibility rate has dropped from 75% or 80% to a mere 40%. We need not wonder why poverty has reached such a high level in Canada. In the seven years since the Liberals took office, poverty in families and child poverty have gone up 50%. This abysmal result has been confirmed by the United Nations. I find that deplorable.

I want to remind the hon. member that I was elected as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, and its basic principle is that we should work for national reconciliation. When the Meech Lake accord was passed, 92% of Canadians agreed. They are not the ones who scrapped it. It took only four or five vicious Liberals who look after their party's interests first instead of those of this country.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Red Deer.

It gives me pleasure to rise today and speak to this Reform Party motion. I congratulate the member for Calgary—Nose Hill for her hard work on this file and for bringing it to the attention of the House.

I will first speak about the need for increased health and social transfers to the provinces. Our health care system is on life support. Every day we hear more stories of patients waiting for days in clogged emergency rooms, nurses at the breaking point and physicians burned out trying to meet the needs of their patients and ever lengthening waiting lists. At the centre of all this is a person who falls ill and pays for the decay in our system with their pain and their suffering.

When the Liberal government assumed power in 1993 it promised to maintain a high level of health care spending for all Canadians. However, the reality is quite different. Since it came to power, the CHS transfer has dropped 28%, ripping a cumulative $21 billion out of transfer payments to the provinces. This slash and burn approach has left a devastated health care system in its wake.

The Canada Health Act, which has five principles that govern health care in Canada, is being violated every day across the country. However, every time someone tries to point out this painfully obvious fact, and I say painfully because people are suffering and even dying because of these failures, they are immediately labelled as an enemy of medicare. Immediately hot button words like two tier and American style are thrown out with no regard to the merit of the argument.

The government likes to wrap itself in the act, claiming to be the white knight of medicare, defending the health of Canadians despite the fact that the act is no longer capable of doing what it was originally intended to do.

The first principle, portability, implies that when citizens travel from one province to the other they will be covered in the same manner as in their home province. This is not true, as each province covers different services.

The second principle, that of public administration, states that the health care system will be publicly funded and administered. The fact is that while the feds and the provinces initially split the bill for health care equally, today the federal government contributes only 11% of the total in health care spending.

The third principle, universality, which means that everybody is covered for health care needs, is simply untrue. Those who cannot pay their premiums are not covered. Those who cannot afford fees for physiotherapy, chiropractic work, prosthesis and other services do without.

The fourth principle, accessibility, which means that an ill person receives care when they need it, is the most important principle of the Canada Health Act that is being violated. Last year 212,000 people were on waiting lists, an increase of 13% from the year before. Compounding this is the fact that people are waiting longer. The government is rationing people's health care and under these circumstances it is the poor and middle class who are getting their health care withheld, for the rich can always go south of the border, or often have connections to jump the queue.

The fifth principle, comprehensiveness, means that necessary services must be covered. However, this is not true considering that home care, many drugs, optical and dental services and many others are not completely covered.

Despite these obvious flaws in our health care system, we have a government that champions the status quo, a position that has taken us into this crisis and one that offers no way out. Throwing more money at a broken system does not help. The extra $2.5 billion that was announced in the 2000 budget, money that will be allocated in the next four years, is like offering a band-aid to a trauma victim. It will not get the job done. What we need is a fundamental shift in how we approach health care in the 21st century. While that shift is being created, we need to maintain what we have and the money that is being put forward is not doing the job.

It is against this backdrop of crumbling federal support for health care that Canadians are learning about the disastrous mismanagement of hundreds of millions of tax dollars in the human resources development department.

On January 19, 2000 an audit was released entitled “Program Integrity: Grants and Contributions” two days after a Reform Party access to information request for the audit was submitted. That audit revealed the following: Of the 459 project files reviewed, 15% did not have an application on file from the sponsor. On the remaining applications the following elements were missing: 72% had no cashflow forecast; 46% had no estimate of the number of participants; 25% had no description of the activities to be supported; 25% provided no description at all of the characteristics of the participants; 11% had no budget proposal; 11% had no description of expected results; and 97% of all files reviewed showed no evidence that anyone had checked to see if the recipient already owed money to HRDC. Eight out of 10 files reviewed did not show evidence of financial monitoring and 87% of project files showed no evidence of supervision.

Here are some examples of where the money went. Videotron Telecom of Montreal is worth $6 billion but received $2.5 million from the transitional jobs fund grant a month after the 1997 election. At the end of its contract, it had not claimed $550,000 of the money so HRDC simply sent them a cheque.

American based RMH Teleservices was enticed to the minister's riding using $1.6 million in HRDC grants over the protests of the neighbouring Liberal ridings. Later, RMH executive vice-president, Michael Sharff, said in an interview that they would have located there without it. He said “I'm sure we would be in Brantford one way or another. That was kind of like icing on the cake”.

The Canadian Aerospace Group in Nipissing, Ontario, received $917,000 of a $1.3 million TJF grant before going bankrupt without building any aircraft. Then the company moved to St. Hubert, Quebec, and was approved for another $1.65 million loan from Quebec's Federal Regional Development Agency, Canada economic development for Quebec regions. No money has been paid yet. The RCMP is investigating. The list goes on.

What is there to show for it? At least 19 police investigations, those we know about, a handful of jobs and a fountain in the Prime Minister's riding. Incidentally that riding received more grant money than the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. Sadly the Prime Minister sees nothing wrong with them, saying that he is only doing his job as a good MP, despite the fact that three of the RCMP investigations are in his riding. I am sure it is no coincidence that many of the beneficiaries of this largesse are also generous contributors to the Liberal Party.

The official opposition believes that Canadians would rather see this money spent on improving the quality of health care than on lining the pockets of the Prime Minister's friends. That is why we are calling on the government to forgo the $1.5 billion increase contained in this year's budget for federal grants and contributions. We believe that this funding is better spent upgrading the quality of health care. We are deeply concerned about the future of health care in Canada. No one wants to see people suffer when they fall ill. No one wants an American style health care system in Canada.

We believe that health care should not be based on financial status. All Canadians should have timely access to essential health care services. When we form the government we will provide greater freedom of choice when it comes to ensuring their well-being and their access to the best medical care and facilities. We believe the needs of patients must come first in the delivery of health services. We will work co-operatively with the provinces so that they have the resources and flexibility to find more effective approaches to the financing, management and delivery of health care, thereby ensuring that the choice of patients in quality of care is maximized.

We can no longer afford to be complacent. We must find the best solutions and implement them. Time is of the essence. The longer we delay, the more people will suffer. Good solutions exist. All we need is the courage to implement them.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with great interest, particularly with regard to the transfer payments.

My understanding is that the federal government is putting $3.3 billion less into the system than was in the system in 1993-94. This is the year 2000. When we factor in inflation we are looking at a great lack of funding from the federal government to the provinces, particularly when the provinces signed on to these programs with the complete understanding that it would be a 50:50 cost sharing.

The hon. member also spoke of pain and suffering, and I have a question for him. To my way of thinking, one of the darkest pages in the history of the medical profession in Canada was how this so-called caring and sharing Liberal government treated hepatitis C victims. These people absolutely believed in the system. They were told that it was fail-safe. They bought into it and went in for blood transfusions. After the fact they found out that they had tainted blood. Some are suffering with kidney failure and some are literally dying. Yet the government has only seen fit to pay the lawyers in these cases. It has not put one dime toward the victims.

Is this the hon. member's idea of what people would think of as a Liberal “we care, we will help you” attitude toward innocent victims in the medical system?

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. One of the most memorable moments in my time in the House was the day when we voted on compensation for hepatitis C victims. That was probably my first real idea of how much power was in the front row of the government.

We saw backbench government members stand to vote against the motion to compensate all victims. To the credit of one member who was very emotional, she had worked very hard for these people but had to vote against her beliefs and the wishes of her constituents.

I have received quite a few letters, as I am sure have all members of the House, from constituents about this issue. I would like to read a couple of them. This one comes from a constituent in Coalhurst, Alberta. It is addressed to the Liberal members of the Government of Canada, with a copy to me, and states:

This letter is to inform you of my disgust at the Liberals in the Federal Government. Their handling of the tax money of this country is a disgrace.

It is my opinion that there are several people that should be relieved of their positions because of their ineptness...Is there no accountability to the people that have put you in office? Please stop the policy...of using tax dollars as a slush fund for political patronage.

Another letter was to the Prime Minister with a copy to myself. It comes from a constituent in Lethbridge and states:

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

As a taxpayer, I find the reports about the way the HRDC has been handing out our money, very disturbing for two main reasons. The first is the apparent lack of proper management of the vast funds of taxpayers money being handed out—There are many who believe that the minister should resign. The hon. minister should be held accountable for the apparent poor management practices of HRDC. However, she may have done taxpayers a big favour by bringing to the attention of the entire country the casual and lax ways that millions of our tax dollars are spent.

It was the member from Nose Hill who brought it to the attention of the country. The letter states further:

But more importantly this affair, as well as the attempt to give millions to millionaire hockey teams, has clearly pointed out to the taxpaying public that the government is collecting more money than it can spend in useful ways.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the subject of transfers and in particular the transfers to health care.

I was in my riding this weekend. I am sure many members, at least on our side of the House, go back to their ridings to talk to their constituents and are told to fix that grant situation in Ottawa; to fix that waste, that boondoggle that has been going on in Ottawa; and to fix the fact that the Prime Minister's riding gets $7 million while the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan each get around $5 million and Alberta gets $3 million, 73% of which goes to the justice minister's riding in Alberta. That is not what they want their tax dollars used on.

The Liberals seem to take the tax and then think it is their money to distribute as they see fit. Their tax and spend philosophy is just not acceptable. Our critic is proposing in today's motion that the grants for HRDC and the like be frozen and that the grants to health care be increased, which is the second thing people are telling us about.

Between 1993 and the proposed 2004 budget there will be a $35 billion cut in transfers for health care. People care about that. Yes, people want reduced taxes, but they also want good first class health care. The government needs to get the message that people want to choose what to do with their money, that they want government to stay out of their business, and that they want government to stop playing politics with the grants it so readily hands out.

Basically we heard the Prime Minister say this weekend that he will be the defender of medicare. What we are really talking about is a socialized, state run 1960s form of health care. It is not sustainable. The status quo is not an option, which the health minister has said many times.

It is the Liberals who are breaking the Canada Health Act. It is the Liberals who are creating a multi-tier health care system. It is the Liberals who are using the Canada Health Act as a hammer against the provinces like some tinpot dictator would do in the treatment of lesser states.

The Prime Minister promises to maintain medicare as it is today. I do not think many Canadians want the Prime Minister to maintain what we have today. We must also remember that it is governments like this one that have created a $580 billion debt with a $40 billion plus interest payment. We put $15 billion into health care and we put $43 billion into interest payments. What is hurting our health care system more than that sort of debt, and who is responsible for it?

Let me repeat that the Prime Minister is saying he wants to maintain a 1960s socialized, state run health care system. North Korea and Cuba along with us can claim to have that sort of a system. Other countries have modernized their health care systems. They have done things to make them better, and I will mention some them.

We are now rated 23rd of 29 countries in the OECD when it comes to health care. We are in the bottom third of industrialized countries when it comes to health care. If some members who are heckling across the way today would ask their constituents what they think about their health care, I am sure that is the answer they would get as well.

It is the Liberals who have destroyed our health care system. They are the ones who are not living by the Canada Health Act. It is not an accessible system. There are waiting lists a mile long. To get to see a specialist one might wait three or four months. That is not accessible. Queue jumping is going on. Whether it it legitimate like the WCB or whether it is politicians, at least politicians from the other side, queue jumping is going on.

It is not portable. I have talked with a number of doctors who have said that they want money upfront, particularly if patients come from provinces such as Quebec. It is not fair to those people to be treated that way. It is the Liberals who are destroying and not obeying the Canada Health Act. Last year 76 items were delisted from health care. That is not comprehensive and that is not acceptable to Canadians. It is not universal.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The member will have four minutes left in his speech and will have the floor when we return. It being almost 2 p.m. we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on March 17 the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry celebrated the birthday of the first Princess Patricia who was born in 1886.

Raised in 1914, this distinguished regiment has provided outstanding service for the past 86 years. During the Great War, the Patricia's fought valiantly on Europe's battlefields. For their efforts they were awarded three Victoria Crosses.

During the Second World War they won deep respect from Allies and enemies alike for their tenacity in battle.

In 1950 the Second Battalion of the Princess Patricia's was the first Canadian infantry unit to arrive in Korea. Its extraordinary courage at the battle of Kapyong won it the distinct honour of a U.S. Presidential Unit Citation.

The Patricia's have distinguished themselves in the Medak Pocket and in other UN peacekeeping operations in both Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.

On behalf of all Canadians I wish to praise the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry for its years of outstanding service.

National Defence

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is a fractured and fighting party. It cannot agree on who its leader is or should be, any more than it can agree on what its defence policy should be.

Last weekend's high comedy convention is reflected in the ongoing dispute between the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs who cannot seem to develop a coherent and consistent policy between them.

The foreign affairs minister's ill timed, immature and irrational attacks on the United States national missile defence system are a case in point.

While Canadian military planners recognize the need, indeed the necessity, of Canadian participation in this defence system, the foreign affairs minister continues to talk about star wars and American aggression all the while alienating and angering our closest ally. How can one man stand in the way of a defence system that is essential to North American security?

It is time for Canada to endorse the national missile defence system.

Agriculture

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity along with my colleague the member for Essex to welcome Mr. Nick Parsons to Parliament Hill this morning.

Mr. Parsons, a grain farmer, drove his combine all the way from Peace River to outline to the public and the government the devastating farm crisis affecting many farm families and their communities across the country.

His journey was not easy but it signifies the spirit and determination for better farm policies for all farmers across Canada. His journey signifies a historic moment in terms of farm policy politics in which farmers from across Canada have travelled across many areas of the country, have demonstrated publicly for better farm policies and his—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies.

Journée Internationale De La Francophonie

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 20, 1970, officials from 21 countries, including Canada, signed in Niamey, Niger, the treaty establishing the first intergovernmental organization for the Francophonie. Special ceremonies will take place this year in Niamey to mark the 30th anniversary of this event. Since 1988, March 20 has been the Journée internationale de la Francophonie.

Canada will mark the anniversary this afternoon at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The Prix de la Francophonie and decorations for the Ordre de la Pléiade will be awarded on that occasion.

Being part of the Francophonie gives Canadians more opportunities to thrive at the international level in the areas of language, culture, politics, economy, new technologies, co-operation and trade.

I wish everyone a very good Journée internationale de la Francophonie.