Debates of March 20th, 2000

Supply

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, today we heard the debate over who is responsible for the deficit and the national debt. Let me quote a few numbers here. Both the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives were responsible.

Back in 1972 our national debt was $16 billion. When the Liberals came to power in 1983, the national debt was $160 billion. In other words, it climbed from $16 billion to $160 billion. The Mulroney Tories came to office in 1984 and by the time they left in 1993, the national debt had moved from $160 billion to $489 billion. The Liberals came back to power in 1993 and they took the national debt from $489 billion up to $600 billion in 1997.

I know it has been reduced since that time but the Liberals are reneging on their responsibility for fiscal problems in Canada. The deficit is one of those problems, especially when we spend more than we take in. The cause of that is that we have borrowed too much money over the years.

It is good news that we are balancing our annual budget but our national debt is still something like 71% of our GDP. It is still too high. Until we get that in order, health care and all other services will lose a lot of money. If we put $42 billion of our interest into our health care annually, everybody in the country would be happy.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I need clarification from the Reform Party. What exactly is it proposing with respect to an alternative health care model?

We have heard statements from the leader of the Reform Party calling very explicitly for a two-tier health care system, one for the rich and one for everybody else. We have heard the leader of the Reform Party call for a user fee. We have heard the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca call for a parallel private, two-tier health care system. The member for Macleod has called for a system that allows access to both core and non-health care systems available outside medicare.

Which one of these positions is the current position of the Reform Party?

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, individuals do pay for things such as eyeglasses, dental care, pharmacare, special shoes and special appliances. Public health care does not provide these things. It would be unrealistic to expect the public purse to pay for every service that an individual requires in the area of health.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this motion. The motion reads as follows:

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.

All Canadians know that Canada's health care system is beyond sick. It is in a crisis. I believe there is one very fundamental reason for this.

From 1993 to 1999, health care costs have risen by $14 billion per year, or 19%, from $72 billion per year to $86 billion. In that same period, the cash transfers from the federal government for health and education fell by $6.3 billion per year from $18.8 billion to $12.5 billion. That is a drop of 34%. That is a cost increase of 19% and a decrease in federal transfers by 34%. Is it any wonder that we have a problem?

The government trumpets that it plans to put a cumulative total of $12 billion back into CHST over the next four years. Is that not special? What it fails to tell Canadians is that since it came to power, it has slashed a cumulative total of $25 billion from health and social transfers. By 2003-04 that cumulative total is expected to be about $35 billion.

The Liberals like to boast about the increase in tax point transfers but those points have remained unchanged since they were first introduced in 1977 while the discretionary cash portion has been slashed.

In 1977 federal cash transfers paid 19 cents of every health care dollar spent. By 1997 that was down to just 10 cents and still the government wants to tell the provinces what to do.

What are some of the realities of the Canadian health care system today? It is a system based on a 1960 socialized, state run model which has failed to evolve to address the realities of the 21st century. I am sure Canadians will be happy to know that our health care system is rated 23rd out of 29 countries in the OECD. I am sure they will also be just thrilled to know that there are only two other countries with similar health care systems to Canada's: Cuba and North Korea. That is wonderful company.

The current system is just not sustainable and the government knows it. Again there are some very simple reasons for this. In 1999, 12.5% of the population of Canada was over the age of 65. The projection for 2006 is 21.4%. That is one in five Canadians over the age of 65. Add to that the fact that Canadians of my age are on the leading edge of the baby boomer bulge and we will not reach age 65 until roughly 2012. Simply put, Canadians are living longer and the population is getting older. Again the current system is just not sustainable.

What about the costs related to new technologies? What about the costs of training people to work with those new technologies? Even if we succeed in training the required number of doctors, nurses, support staff and medical technicians, will we be able to keep them in Canada with of our outrageous taxes? That is a whole other debate.

I am afraid we have seen only the beginning of technological and professional shortages. The result has been an increase in the length of waiting lists by 43% from 1993 to 1998 and that shows no signs of going down.

What is the government's answer? In 1999-2000 CHST cash was increased by $2 billion, still short by $4.3 billion, still only 23% of what it was when it took power. Then, in the 2000-01 budget, it allocated just $1 billion more for health care, even though the budgetary surplus was $11.9 billion on January 31, 2000. At the same time this budget alone provides for an increase of $1.5 billion in federal grants and contributions, a one year increase of 11%.

The motion we are debating today calls for the government to forgo that increase in grants and contributions and to direct the funds instead into health care. It does not suggest that it slash federal grants and contributions, only that it forgo the increase.

It would appear that one of the biggest winners in this year's increase derby is, surprise, surprise, Human Resources Development Canada. Good old HRDC. For the last five fiscal years in a row, the Liberals have increased grants and contributions at HRDC. In 1996-97 they were $2.84 billion. This year they are expected to total $3.17 billion, an increase of 12%.

One would think that given the events of the past few weeks, the government would show some respect for taxpayers and, at the very least, hold the line on grants and contributions for this department until there is a full accounting of past moneys spent. The controversy surrounding the transitional jobs fund alone is reason enough. The TJF was $100 million per year. Its successor, the Canada jobs fund, has been increased to $110 million, while its unemployment criteria has been relaxed from 12% to 10%.

I am sure that Canadians would like some explanation as to just how it is that the Prime Minister's riding alone got more in TJF and CJF money than the entire provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, as was reported in the National Post of March 16. I am also sure that Canadians, Quebecers especially, would like some explanation as to how it is that the Prime Minister's riding received four times as much in TJF and CJF grants as the average Quebec riding. The TJF and CJF programs are not the only sources of controversy.

Last week I raised a question in the House regarding a complaint received in my office. A few weeks ago, Mr. Kurtis DeSilva, president of the Metis nation in B.C., and Joe Lanza, a former provincial HRDC compliance officer, came to see me in my Surrey office with a pile of documentation relating to the alleged mismanagement of HRDC funds by the Metis Council of British Columbia, funds earmarked for employment and training programs in the Metis community. Among the complaints was one having to do with the use of job creation money by a council director to attend law school in Toronto. In another case, HRDC funds were allegedly used to send the son of another council director to India to gain life experience.

Dan Ferguson, a journalist with the Surrey North Delta News Leader , has been investigating this issue extensively. He has quoted a number of individuals who complained about questionable training programs, programs which in their view were, in the words of one, a pitiful waste.

A cursory audit by HRDC uncovered almost $170,000 which could not be accounted for. The RCMP said that it did not have the resources to investigate even though it acknowledged the complaints.

Yesterday, at the Liberal Party convention, a British Columbia Metis member of the party said in an interview that there was a real problem. Yet the ministry has refused to do a forensic audit. In fact the minister even refused to answer my question last week.

In another case, the Surrey Aboriginal Cultural Society has brought to my attention that the aboriginal residents of Surrey have received no employment and training funds since 1998 even though the Sto:lo nation was contracted by HRDC to provide the funds. I have written the minister for an explanation but to date have heard nothing back.

In still another case, two women complained to my office after an HRDC contractor placed them into courses which they had no hope of completing due to a lack of prerequisite training. The spotlight is currently on HRDC. One must suspect that there are similar stories buried in other departments, many of which have had no internal audit done on grants and contributions since January 1, 1994.

Rather than attacking the provinces, the federal government should provide leadership by working co-operatively with them to improve health care. A good place to start would be to forgo any further increases in grants and contributions and instead direct those funds toward health care.

I urge all members to support the motion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, maybe the member is aware of the research done by the National Forum on Health. The report came out in early 1997.

One of the key observations in the report was that between 1975 and 1993 the actual spending per capita on health care in Canada almost doubled from $1,100 to $2,000. However, at the same time there was no evidence that the level of the quality of health of Canadians had improved. In other words, the experts concluded that money alone was not going to be the solution.

Taking that into account and taking the fact that Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland all have money from last year that they have not used, how does the member think this simplistic solution of transferring an additional $1.5 billion into health care will actually achieve anything? What evidence does he have?

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that the provinces are starved for cash. Because of the way the government has cut billions and billions of dollars since it came to power, the provinces have done what they could to get it back. I know the waiting list. I know the problems in my own province and in my own community.

Restoring the cash transfer is only part of the solution but it is a part that has to be done now. Instead of taking the money and firing it off into what a lot of my constituents are coming to me and saying are wasteful programs of grants and contributions, this money has to be invested somewhere where the people want it, which is in health care.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech on this very important matter. I understand that the Reform Party motion tries to focus on two issues of importance to the Reform Party and certainly of importance to all Canadians. However, my concern is that by linking the two we do not necessarily have a clear indication from the Reform Party about the immediate restoration of transfer payments for health care.

Regardless of where the money comes from, is the Reform Party prepared to commit, as a minimum, the $1.5 billion in transfer payments to be restored? Is it also prepared to go even further and acknowledge that there is currently a $3.3 billion gap in terms of transfer payments that were cut by the government in 1995? Would Reformers also agree to support us in holding the government to account for that money?

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we would have brought this motion forward if we were not prepared to commit to say that $1.5 million should be transferred into the CHST.

As for the other question, it is something we obviously have to look at. People are asking that health care be restored. Right now one way we see doing that is by getting rid of the waste, putting the money that is being wasted up front and doing something with it to restore health care to where the community wants it to be.

We acknowledge the gap that still exists. That is obviously something that has to be considered for the future. Right now the money that is going to waste, as far as we see it or as far as my constituents are telling me, has got to be put where it going to do some good, and that is into health care.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing the member opposite talked about was grants and contributions which is an accounting mechanism for our accumulating expenditure and for where it is going to be spent.

The member for Calgary—Nose Hill this morning, the lead Reform speaker on the topic, mentioned that she did not think that the HRDC grants and contributions needed to be touched. It was the others and the increments in the new budget.

Maybe the member would comment. Of the new grants and contributions in the budget, would he cut the $900 million to the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the $900 million for the new research chairs across Canada and the $700 million to ensure that we have clean air, water and prepare for reducing our greenhouse gases? Are those the kinds of initiatives he would cut out of the budget?

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are any number of areas where we can see waste and not necessarily the programs the hon. member talked about. There are far too many areas of waste in the country.

I just rattled off a few of them which came from my constituents. They saw $170,000 unaccounted for in programs and training money that should have gone to the Metis community in British Columbia. That is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much waste in the country. If we could take care of the waste, do the proper forensic audits, find out where the waste is and cut it, I am sure there would plenty of money left over to restore the health care system to where it should be.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with a colleague. It is my pleasure today to join this debate because it is a welcome opportunity for members of the government to reaffirm our philosophy in favour of a balanced approach to social policy in Canada.

Unlike members across the way, we believe that government has an important and necessary role to play in building the kind of society that cares about its people, not one that cares just for the well-off but one that cares for all Canadians including those groups within society that might need special help.

We believe in an approach that combines both grants and contributions and the Canada health and social transfer as a responsible balanced way to fund the social policy needs of Canadians. We do not believe in the kind of dogmatic all or nothing approach the opposition motion proposes.

Our approach to responsible social policy also recognizes the need to balance the jurisdictional concerns of the provinces and territories with the federal government's obligation to meet national social policy objectives. Our position is that both the federal and provincial levels have important roles to play. That is why we have substantially increased transfers to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer. That is why we are also increasing funding for grants and contributions programs that meet specialized social policy needs throughout Canada. We understand the need for this balanced approach and so do Canadians.

Here is a good example. It is a quote from a letter written by the executive director of the Child Care Connection of Nova Scotia. It refers to a program that supports child care research and says:

Child care is the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, but this research and development program is a significant means by which the federal government can provide leadership in increasing the quality of services and support the development of an infrastructure to deliver child care services to families in Canada.

This letter says it well. There is a role for both levels of government in social policy. This letter shows how important the federal role can be in contributing directly to the needs of Canadians. It also illustrates the kind of support we have for this approach from all across the country.

I have another example from the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. The president and executive director of the organization have written a letter to the hon. minister. The letter talks about the support that HRDC provides to help persons with disabilities. The writers urge the minister to remain steadfast in pursuit of her mandate.

These are not government MPs I am quoting. These are caring Canadians who work with individuals that need are help. These people look to the Government of Canada and they recognize the value and importance of our program in providing it.

A motion like the one before us today will work against the interest of people like these. I am tempted to say shame on those who want to take back funding earmarked for grants and contributions, but I assume that those who propose motions like this one do not understand the role of federal grants and contributions in our system.

They should know that all across Canada these grants are working in partnership with concerned Canadians to help those who depend on the government for the support they need. From every part of the country we hear from people who know just how important grants and contributions are.

In Edmonton, Alberta, for example, we have heard from the Chrysalis Society about the value of our help to persons with disabilities who are trying to find work. We have heard from the Junction Day Care Centre in the west end of Toronto about how HRDC funding is improving the quality of child care there. An organization called the Literacy Partners of Manitoba, based in Winnipeg, has told us that improving literacy skills awareness and resources for adults in Canada is vital work for us all.

There are cases like this all across the country. These cases prompt me to ask the following questions. Would our hon. friends opposite suggest we cut back on helping to build the literacy skills as well as the technological skills required for us to remain competitive in the global marketplace? Should we forget about making it easier for a person with a disability to find work and participate fully in Canadian society? Should we stop funding the work to improve the capacity of our child care facilities to provide quality care for our children? Of course we should not, at least not as far as this government is concerned.

Investing in the development of our human resources is one of the most important things governments can do, and more important in this era of globalization than ever before. The government has no intention of eliminating the valuable support provided by the grants and contributions program. I doubt if the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose lives have been improved because of our direct support would vote for this motion. I cannot support it either.

I am proud to be part of a government that shows its willingness to help Canadians who need us. I am proud to speak in favour of our grants and contributions programs and the benefits they bring to hundreds of thousands of individual Canadians who need our help.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government member left the door open when she said the role played by grants is not well understood. We just have to look at the HRDC scandal. The door is too wide open.

And I am going to open it wider still. We know what HRDC grants are being used for. To benefit Liberal cronies and certain persons who contribute to the Liberal campaign fund. We know the Prime Minister downplayed the HRDC scandal saying it only involved $251, but the more we dig and the deeper we delve, the more we find. There are some very serious cases. The opposition parties have pressured the government into calling in the RCMP. We know these investigations will shed more light on what is going on in this department.

It is a pity that there was no investigation into all the money given out by HRDC under seven different programs. It was found that 87% of project files showed no evidence of supervision, 80 contribution projects had no indication of monitoring for achievement of expected results, 66% of the files reviewed did not contain an analysis or a rationale for recommending or accepting the project, and in 36% of the cases where the dollar value was increased, the reason for it was not documented. The minister tells us that saying no to HRDC programs means that we do not quite understand the role of grants.

Considering how the CHST money is doled out, giving the provinces small transfers of $2.4 billion over four years knowing how hospitals, universities, colleges and CEGEPs are all badly in need of additional funding, one can wonder what is the use of federal programs in areas that, often, are not under federal jurisdiction. We are concerned with the management of these grants, which are given for purely partisan purposes and are not based on any long term strategy.

There is also a $305 million program for the homeless in Canada. That program is tailor made for Ontario and Vancouver, but not for Quebec. We know it will be very difficult for us to access these funds.

I am in the middle of a tour on poverty to explain the federal government's responsibility with regard to the social safety net. What we are told is that, very often, people do not hear about the programs, or very little.

I would like to give the parliamentary secretary food for thought by asking her if she is really serious when she says parliamentarians do not quite understand the role of federal grants.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the opposition member that the department and the government in general take the results of this audit very seriously. They are not the only ones who are dismayed by these results. We are upset about it too. That is why we have ordered a plan to try to fix administrative issues that have resulted in the papers being full of this issue for weeks. The minister acknowledges responsibility. We are not happy about it and we plan to fix it.

Accompanying that there has been an unprecedented release of information. The member opposite must know that the private sector also asks for internal audits of its operations. The difference is that it does not show the public what has been found in those audits. Instead, the private sector makes a plan to fix it and it fixes it. That is what we are doing, but because our taxpayers are interested in the use of their money we have released 16 binders, about five and a half inches tall each, full of information to be perfectly clear and transparent about what it is we are doing and how very serious we are.

The member opposite talks about this as a scandal. I am glad to have an opportunity to comment on that word. A scandal to me is when there is a cover-up, something like sex, lies and video tapes or international spying. The history of this country does have scandals. This is not one of them. Only in Canada would lack of administrative controls be called a scandal as has been pointed out by one of our pre-eminent journalists.

If she thinks there is some connection to partisan purposes, that is fundraising, as has been alluded to in the House by other members, I challenge her to make that statement outside the House because it implies a degree of fraud which we have not found. It has implications for people's reputations and they would have a right to defend themselves.

She also refers to the fact that the opposition has referred cases to the RCMP. After audits and after forensic audits we have referred cases to the RCMP. The opposition is not alone in its virtue.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I might, I would like to pick up on the comments from my colleague who was addressing the issue of whether or not there is a scandal. I think there is.

I think there is really quite a remarkable scandal in this issue. The scandal surrounds the attempts by members opposite to try to portray the programs run by Human Resources Development Canada as being somehow corrupt. If members opposite want to chirp about this issue they should go to their HRDC offices.

We know that many of them have not taken the time to do this. They should go to their HRDC offices and meet with the men and women who deliver these programs. They should get down and dirty and meet with the people who are being helped by these programs. They should roll up their sleeves and talk to disabled Canadians who are being assisted by HRDC funding. They should roll up their sleeves and talk to the young people of Canada, whether they are in entrepreneurial programs, automotive programs, computer programs, training programs, job finding programs or require assistance in writing a resume. These are things that perhaps members opposite take for granted. Many of these people do not have the facilities or the ability to do these things.

The real scandal here is that the opposition has succeeded in denigrating these programs. Those members denigrate the good work that is done on behalf of all Canadians by HRDC staff.

I am not saying there are not problems. The parliamentary secretary, the minister and the Prime Minister have admitted that there are indeed administrative problems. But should we throw out the proverbial baby with the proverbial bath water? That in essence is what this motion is asking the government to do, to take the $1.5 billion that is being put into improving access to these programs and move it to the CHST.

I want to hear members opposite, who I believe have an understanding of the role of government, speak on this. I have yet to hear them. What I sense is some kind of Profumo mentality that somehow they have us on the run.

The damage being done by the daily proliferation during question period and in the media is not being done to us. It is not being done to members on this side of the House. It is being done to young people, the disabled, the people in aboriginal communities, all of the people who need the help of this government.

One good thing which comes out of a debate like this is that it draws clear lines in the sand. The Reform motion suggests that we should take the money out of these programs and put it into the CHST, simply write another blank cheque. We know that the mentality of the Reform Party is provincial. It need be provincial because there are only certain provinces in which it can get elected. We know that Reform would turn over the entire health care system. Reform members have called for the dismantling of the Canada Health Act. They have called for user fees. They have called for private medicine.

Reform members stand in this place and defend the actions of the provincial government in Alberta without allowing proper debate. There may possibly be some things worth looking at in Bill 11. Again, I would not throw it out entirely. Why do we not discuss this in a less than partisan atmosphere to find out what kind of service delivery we should be providing in the areas of health care?

I received a call from a constituent today who has an 81 year old mother with cancer who lives in Montreal. He has to make trips down to see her because she cannot get the service that she needs in that province delivered by the provincial government. Should we wash our hands of this? Absolutely not.

We know that we have a federation that requires co-operation. The federal government collects taxes and redistributes the wealth around the country to ensure that things such as our Canada Health Act are upheld. Canadians understand that is the role of the federal government. It is also our role to ensure that the provincial governments, which are indeed the delivery mechanisms for health care, live up to their requirements under the Canada Health Act to make it universally accessible and affordable to all Canadians, and to not allow for two-tier health care. Yet we see the debate. We understand. Our Minister of Health has said that of course there are clinics that provide private health care in certain areas which are perhaps not funded in Ontario through OHIP. We need to look at them. Are they effective? Do they make sense? Are they taking away opportunities for Canadians? Without paying extra user fees or additional funds of some kind, are they taking away opportunities for all Canadians to access health care? If they are, that is not the principle that the Liberal government, this government, and frankly even Conservative governments in the past have espoused and upheld.

What do we see? We see a request that we simply transfer more money to the provinces without any kind of agreement or understanding that the money will be used for that 81 year old mother of my constituent in Montreal to access better health care, so that my constituent does not have to take several days away from his commissioned sales job to make sure his mother is getting the proper care.

We think that is wrong. However, we understand and Canadians need to understand that the provincial Government of Quebec, in this case, has left money on the table. The Mike Harris government in Ontario has left some $800 million sitting in a trust account for goodness sake. Why? The answer they gave was “We weren't ready to draw it down because we might need it more next year”. What kind of nonsense is that?

I speak from personal experience. My wife's mother is very ill and needs hospital care on a regular basis. This is a woman who has breathing problems. We go to a hospital in my community. I never thought I would see the day when it would be necessary for my wife to clear the dust off the shelves or the window ledges in an area that deals with people living on oxygen, living with emphysema, living with serious problems. There is dust in our hospitals.

I know that the men and women who work in those hospitals are overworked. They are working their fingers to the bone. What is the problem? It seems to me that we have, at least in the province of Ontario, and I think we have seen it right across Canada, provincial governments which want to go to their electorate and say “Aren't we wonderful. We have cut your taxes”. Meanwhile they increase the debt.

Even the premier of Quebec has recently jumped on the tax cut band wagon. He is afraid he is going to get left behind. Yet they cut health care services. Then, lo and behold, they complain that the nasty old federal government is not giving them enough money, but we find that they have left it in the bank.

Do Canadians really want us to sign another blank cheque to allow Premier Bouchard, Premier Harris and Premier Klein to simply do what they want, to reduce their provincial tax load at the same time as they cut health care? I think not.

What the debate should really be about is who is delivering what. How does that 81 year old or how does my mother-in-law get proper care in the community or in the home? That is what our health minister is talking about. Instead of denigrating the great work that people are doing in helping our young people, our disabled, people who have been laid off through no fault of their own to deal with this incredible changing economy, instead of bashing these programs that work, I would think that members in this place would suggest that we should be having a debate on how we can continue to support those people who need help and on how we can better deliver good quality health services that are not Americanized, that are not privatized and that are not based on the model that we know the Reform Party prefers.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question pertains to the member's comment about wanting a healthy discussion in this place about Bill 11, something which we have tried to do for some time now.

The member will recall that three times in the House we asked the Minister of Health to either table his own legal opinion on Bill 11 or to consider the legal opinions that have been prepared by other groups. The minister has said on three separate occasions “Share those documents with the House”. In response, each and every time we have tried to table the documents we have been denied permission to do so.

I would therefore ask, given the member's comments, if we could have unanimous consent today to table two legal opinions commissioned by the Canadian Union of Public Employees regarding whether bill 11 is in violation of the spirit and letter of the Canada Health Act.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps, since it is questions and comments, we will hear the comment and then I will put the question to the House. We will try to fit in three questions and the responses.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what our Minister of Health has said is that the government wants to study all ramifications of the bill in Alberta. That is the responsible thing to do.

To simply have a knee-jerk reaction and say that it is all good, as the Reform Party would say, or that it is all bad, as the New Democrats would say, is irresponsible. We have to analyze bill 11 and find out if indeed it is in violation of the Canada Health Act. I can tell the member that if it violates one hair of the Canada Health Act, then Alberta will hear from the federal government and it will not be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to table the documents as requested?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and the member who made the intervention both spoke passionately about the grants helping people in need. I do not think we would find too much opposition to those types of grants on this side of the House which actually help people in need.

I would like the hon. member to clarify how organizations like Wal-Mart are people in need and if he is willing to passionately defend those kinds of grants as well.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the classic example of opposition party members denigrating these grants is the suggestion that some $45,000 was given to a bowling alley, I believe, in the Prime Minister's riding.

What they fail to tell is the complete story, that it was a $7 million tourist investment made by the private sector, by the provincial government, by everybody in the community, and an additional $45,000 was provided by HRDC. They happened to use it in the bowling alley. If the member wants to destroy a $7 million project because of that, that is irresponsible. It is simply not telling the whole story. We cannot say it is a lie. It is not only not parliamentary to do so, it is also not really a lie. It is a distortion of the facts to try to perpetrate a fraud upon the people of the country that somehow we are misusing those dollars. It is not the truth.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way spoke very eloquently, but I believe I must set the record straight and put things in perspective.

He said the provinces have to be supervised, otherwise they might not spend the money they are given for health care the way it was intended to.

I want to go back to the trust fund. We know full well it was a trap set for the provinces. They had three years to spend very small amounts: $2.5 billion over four years.

The member's remarks about health care funding to the provinces when we know that, since 1993, this government has cut $30 billion in the transfers to the provinces for health, education and income security. And they have the nerve to tell us we do not care about the disadvantaged in our society. They have the audacity to lecture me.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of brief points. First, transfer payments are higher now than they were when the Liberals were elected in 1993. I only arrived 1997. They are actually higher. That is a fact. The member can look at the chart.

The other point is the member ignores the fact that the provincial governments have some responsibility in this. They have a responsibility to deliver health care services. What opposition parties would like us to do is either give it all to the provinces or in the case of some members, take it away and let the federal government run all of it.

I do not think either one of those is a satisfactory solution. We have to work with the provinces to deliver better quality health care and not do it at the expense of young Canadians who need our help.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member owes an apology to the House. In fact the transfer payments in 1993 were $18.8 billion.