Debates of Feb. 19th, 2002

Supply

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly seem to have gotten the attention of the hon. member. He has awoken from the lethargy that the Alliance members imposed on him when they were speaking.

In any event, I do not see the problem that the hon. member sees with the federal government putting conditions on the spending of its own money. If I was going to give him money to be spent on health care would he want me to just say “here's the money, do with it what you would like. Set up private clinics, give it to corporations and do whatever you like”. If it is my money, and in this case it is the federal government's money, the federal government has every right to put conditions on the spending.

That makes it constitutional. That is not an invasion of provincial jurisdiction. That is why the Canada Health Act was devised the way it was. That is why it took years to bring it in. The minions down in the Department of Justice took a couple of years to figure out how they could do this after the Hall commission report. Action on extra billing and user fees was recommended in 1981 or 1982 and it took until 1984 to get the Canada Health Act because the federal government was worried about intruding on provincial jurisdiction. In the end what did the act say it could do? It could put conditions on the spending of its own money and that is what it did with the Canada Health Act.

The government said that it was its money and it would give it to the provinces under following conditions. That is appropriate. I can understand why the Bloc is against it, but to suggest that it is somehow not within the power of the federal government or that it somehow intrudes on provincial jurisdiction is wrong. It may have an effect on provincial policy; that is the choices of provincial governments when it comes to the provision of health care services.

However, if the member wants to stand in his place and make a defence of extra billing and user fees and why the federal government should allow them to proliferate across the country or anything else that amounts to a form of patient participation, I would be glad to hear his defence of that particular policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that when it comes to health care the Alliance and the Bloc think alike in allowing the provinces to do whatever they please and damn the federal government or a national coast to coast to coast medicare system.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. Regarding the NAFTA trade deal the Conservatives and Liberals signed with the Americans and Mexico and regarding the concerns they have on the health care crisis, it is a coincidence that we have the drug patent law, which was passed in the eighties, along with these trade deals, yet the financial burden has been placed on health care. Would he elaborate a bit more on that?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member points out a real problem with the health care system. One is called cost drivers by those who analyze our health care system and that is the price of drugs. One of the reasons the price of drugs has gone up is because it has been turned over completely to the marketplace through the gutting of the generic drug legislation that we had up until the 1990s. What has happened to the price of drugs is a good indicator of what will happen to the price of health care if we turn it over to the private sector.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on health care.

If we were to believe our friends in the government benches, there do not appear to be many problems with health care, except that tens of millions of dollars have been invested in a royal commission and that, everywhere in the provinces, people are talking about health.

I would like to start by saying that we will be very happy to support the motion moved by our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois. This is a simple motion that sends a clear signal to those who are talking about the issues of funding, respect for provincial areas of responsibility and the role of the federal government.

Before beginning my speech, I would like to address two or three points. First, I would like to say that I will be sharing the time allotted to me with my colleague, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest. Second, I will come back to the issue of the role of the federal government. My colleague from the New Democratic Party spoke at length about it earlier. He said that we should expect the federal government to have strong convictions when it comes to the provinces and health care.

However, it is important to remember that the federal government's involvement is mainly through equalization and the health and social transfer, which covers not only health, but also social services. Until I am convinced otherwise, the federal government does not have the same kind of horsemen of the Apocalypse in the field of health as those that are to be found in social services. There are problems in post-secondary education, but when it comes to federal transfers to the provinces, where there are the most constraints and controls is in health care.

It is also important not to overreact. I should hope that no one would accuse the provinces of incompetency when it comes to delivering social services and education. Therefore, we must be wary of this attitude whereby the federal government has to watch over the provinces and lord its cash over them in order to ensure that health care is run properly.

Tax points are one way of ensuring long-term stable and viable funding. If we had this kind of funding today from the federal government—of course, knowing our Liberal friends, it is not likely—but if we had this long-term stable, predictable and substantial funding, we would not necessarily be talking about tax points. There would be less of a need to ensure ongoing, stable and predictable funding to the provinces. This is what tax points do. Right now, unfortunately, such a system offers fewer advantages for the poorest provinces.

That being said, when provinces such as Quebec, or when the National Assembly, to name one body, calls for transfers of tax points, it is because the past experience with the government now in power is disastrous.

Once again, when we examine the two speeches given this morning, one of them said “No, we have provided funding and we know where we are headed. The federal government has put money back into the system. Things are not as bad as all that”. Why then was a royal commission of inquiry set up? That is the question we must ask ourselves.

This morning, someone asked what was the total percentage that the federal government had invested in health. The chair of the Standing Committee on Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, two people somewhat familiar with this issue, do not even know the figures. And we were told “We have spent incredible amounts to find out where our health dollars are going”. With respect to information on health in Canada, we want to know, we want to be accountable. This is why we have spent tens, hundreds of millions of dollars since the Liberals came to power in order to find out where taxpayers' health dollars are going. And two relatively well informed individuals cannot tell us the total percentage that the federal government is spending on health.

So let us not hear that the provinces cannot manage as well as the federal government. Two individuals who should know what the federal government spends do not. Do not ask me. I do not know, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars we are spending to inform the public and make the system of federal funding more accountable.

When they say there is no money problem, this is not true. The minister referred to it in the newspaper La Presse of last Saturday, following her visit to Montreal. She said that the system's funding will remain a problem we will have to deal with sooner or later. That is what she said last Friday in Montreal.

While the Romanow commission is doing its thing, the minister asks the provinces to take their time and refrain from doing anything. They should wait for the Romanow report, not try anything to improve the system. There will be, at the very least, an 18-month waiting period. The government will have to do something following the Romanow report. This means at least a two year waiting period. And they tell us not to move.

Friday, the minister told us that at the end, funding will remain an issue that we will have to deal with sooner or later. We will have to wait two years to do so. Is there a funding problem, yes or no? There is one and the minister acknowledged it. For once, I agree with her.

Her predecessor was more concerned with his leadership than with the issue of health. It is still obvious today. However, the current health minister seems to acknowledge the existence of a funding problem. It is about time she did.

The motion says that despite all the commissions, there is still a funding problem. Money will not solve all the problems. Money cannot buy happiness, but it does help a bit.

Let us look at what the Canadian Medical Association had to say on the matter. It said that there has to be a stable reinvestment in health care. We have to do it. The Romanow commission raises the issue of stable funding as a means to allow provinces to adjust. In Quebec, health care costs show a 6% increase. I mention Quebec because I am more familiar with that province than the others. Quebec has to deal with an investment of 3.5%. Therefore, there is a deficit. Like all other provinces, Quebec is looking for solutions.

After nine months, the federal government is recording a surplus of $13.5 billion, plus the other amounts concealed here, there and everywhere. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will surely touch upon that, since he is so familiar with the situation. I am anxious to see what the figure will be by year end. We know that there will be $2 billion or $3 billion going for infrastructures. This is being spent right away, because if it is left in the government's hands without any instruction by the Minister of Finance or the PMO, there may be talk about its being invested in real things, such as health. That they do not want, so it will instead get put right away into hidden funds and they will attempt to juggle the figures a bit. I will leave it up to people more qualified than myself, in my party and in the others, including the Bloc Quebecois, to address these matters.

Looking at the four major orientations of the interim report, despite all the respect I have for Mr. Romanow, it must be admitted that the Clair commission, the Lord report, the Fyke commission and the Mazankowski report all addressed this very well, and in more detail than the interim report. The Romanow report is not reinventing the wheel. With all due respect to the author, it is not very impressive. It is an interim report, a consultation paper.

Those who came before the Clair and other commissions are going to reprint their briefs with a new date. They will submit them to Mr. Romanow, saying: “The Clair commission has a copy, as do Mr. Mazankowski and Mr. Lord, and all the first ministers have copies as well. If you want one, we will do one up specially for you, with today's date on it”. That is what will be done.

They are delaying. We know the federal government has the money. We know that the provinces are having trouble making ends meet as far as health services are concerned. Costs are skyrocketing. Drug costs are going up, as are all the machines and scan equipment and so on. People want to have the latest in technology because their lives depend on it.

We are pleased to support the motion of our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond--Arthabaska for the opportunity to join in the debate. It will probably sound like I am supporting the government when I read some of the statistics. I will move to the task of attacking or criticizing the government later, but I will attempt to put into perspective some of what is facing us as a nation. I will attempt to leave some of the politics outside the equation for the time being.

Health spending in Canada has been growing at a faster rate than ever in the last 25 years. It is expected to exceed $1 billion this year. Figures from the Canadian Institute for Health Information estimate that health care spending will reach $1.25 billion this year, an increase of 6.9% from last year. That follows an estimated 7.1% increase in the year 2000.

As a proportion of gross domestic product, spending has risen to 9.4% from 8.9% in 1997. In comparison the U.S. spends 12.9% of GDP and Germany spends 10.3%.

The problem goes beyond the borders of Canada in terms of what countries are experiencing around the nation. Compared to some of the more advanced and developed countries, Canada ranks fifth among OECD members in the amount it spends on medical services. Yet it ranks well down on the list of most quality categories based on OECD reports of 2001.

The low ranking of Canada's health care system on the OECD's quality scale is consistent with the rank of 30. In other words, Canada is in 30th place according to the World Health Organization. We have some fundamental problems. The question is how we resolve them.

This is the first substantive debate we have had in the House since September 11. Obviously health care has been pushed off the agenda of the House for obvious reasons. The problem has not disappeared. It is still out there. The government has have taken very few measures to address the problems. Spending continues to grow, quality care continues to erode, and according to the statistics I have just cited our ranking continues to go down in terms of other developed countries in the world and quality care given.

There is a number of reasons for it. Let us talk about the Romanow report. I know my colleague has mentioned it, but the Romanow report identified the erratic and unstable funding that has been a hallmark of the government. Again we go back to the 1994-95 budget when the government unilaterally gutted the system without consulting anyone, particularly the provinces. That threw the system into a crisis from which it has yet to recover.

The crises is one of the points that Mr. Romanow remarked on in his report. The system cannot survive if we have an erratic or unstable funding process where at the whim of the federal government money is simply taken out of the system.

In the run up to the last election we proposed that if we were to go beyond that we would have to consider options. One was to add another principle to the five principles of the Canada Health Act. We suggested in the election of 2000 that there should be a sixth principle which would be predictable sustainable funding for the system.

That means governments could plan for the future, which is something they cannot do today simply because year to year they have no idea how much money will be in the system and whether or not it will be taken away by the government.

When we get into these debates unfortunately Canadians' eyes gloss over in the sense that they have heard it all before. They have heard it from me. They have heard it from our critic. They have heard it from every member of the opposition when we are on our feet talking about health care.

It is almost as if the government knows what it has to do yet it refuses to act. I go back to the words of my colleague from Richmond--Arthabaska who asked what is new. I think every member of the House would give Mr. Romanow the respect he deserves. The Romanow report is just one of many reports with the same sort of underlying theme. We have had Romanow. We have had Mazankowski. We have had Fyke. We have had Clair. We have reports coming out our ears.

The government's position, if I could summarize it, is basically to wait it out. It will wait for Romanow's report to be completed and then it will act on it. The time clock is ticking away.

About a year ago the health minister of the province I come from said we were about six inches away from the wall. We are in big trouble in that province. We are in big trouble in all provinces. It has nothing to do with the have or have not provinces. Regardless of the individual wealth of the provinces they are all in trouble.

The Romanow report came down, and what is new? He outlined in his interim report four recommendations. We could boil it down to four ideas. Are any of them new?

First, he said we could start by putting more money into the system. That is not new. We know and the statistics I cited show that has happened to a degree. We can argue about how much the provinces put in, how much the federal government put in and whether tax points count, whether it is 14% of the total or whether it is 25% from the federal side. We will accept the argument the government made that we will not go back to 50:50 funding. We know that is not possible. We will argue over the percentages until the cows come home, but we will not return to the good old days.

The second point Romanow made was on adopting medicare user fees. That one has been discussed around this place for years and in all the provinces. Some of the provinces brought them in only to abandon them.

The third one involves more private health care. It is another one that has been discussed in the House and argued by the premiers in their home provinces.

The fourth one is about making the system more efficient. How can we make the system more efficient? There are many ideas out there that we could all buy regardless of political stripe.

I was struck yesterday by the individual responsibility of Canadians in terms of making the system more efficient. Administratively we can do that. When we examine the role of nurses and doctors and how the system works, certainly a lot can be done and a lot has been done.

A point was made to me by the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation that was on the Hill yesterday to bring members of parliament up to date on what is happening within the organization and to educate us in terms of heart disease and what we can do.

The point that was made to me dealt with the individual responsibility of Canadians and what we can do to create less of a drain on the system. If the system is to improve we can do it by better lifestyle practices as individual Canadians with simple things such as diet and refraining from smoking. Some 80,000 Canadians a year die of heart disease and related illnesses brought on by that. Many of them could be eliminated through individual responsibility.

I will leave it at that. It is an interesting debate. As our critic said, we are prepared to accept the motion. I look forward to questions and responses and the continued debate throughout the afternoon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate led by my party, the Bloc Quebecois, on the issue of health care funding.

For the next twenty minutes I will broach this issue from the perspective of the tax imbalance. What we need to see, is that the current situation, the underfunding of health networks in Canada, is related to a much more fundamental problem, that of the tax imbalance between the federal government's taxing powers, the ability of the government in Ottawa to collect taxes from taxpayers, and those that have been devolved to the provincial governments, to the Government of Quebec.

The imbalance began in 1995. When the federal government started to get a handle on public finances, it used the opportunity to bring down the deficit, and it did so on the backs of the provinces through the contributions it has historically made to the Canadian provinces and Quebec to fund health, education and income security.

I need not remind people that at the outset, the costs for these federal support programs for the Government of Quebec and for the Canadian provinces in health, education and income security were shared equally between the federal government and the Government of Quebec, and likewise with the provincial governments.

Over the years, the federal government, particularly since 1995, has unilaterally made drastic and uncivilized cuts to get federal public finances under control, while claiming to be getting its own fiscal house in order. That is completely false.

The federal government has done three things to bring about this current tax imbalance. First, it did so by reducing spending: since 1995 the federal government has cut at least $38 billion from transfers that would have been made if the federal transfer programs in health, education and income security had been maintained. The first source of significant savings then is these drastic cuts for a total of $38 billion that would otherwise have gone to the provinces.

Second, since 1977-78—and particularly over the past 10 years— the federal government has been grabbing an increasingly larger proportion of the taxes paid by taxpayers. This is very important, because when we look at the changes in tax revenues and when we distinguish between the various taxes at the federal level, we realize that personal income tax is the fastest growing tax, compared to all other types of taxes. The result is that, for the past seven years, we have had an average annual increase of about 7% in tax revenues generated by personal income taxes.

To give a global picture of the situation, in Quebec the federal government keeps 60% of the revenues from personal income tax, compared to 40% for the Quebec government. And the situation is about the same everywhere in the country. This is very important. If the federal government gets most of the revenues from personal taxes, and if these revenues are growing faster, it means that the government is increasing its chances of achieving larger surpluses year after year. Consequently, annual surpluses become structural surpluses related to the structure of federal revenues, compared to the revenue structure in Quebec and other provinces.

Third, by targeting the deficit at the expense of the provinces, the federal government has reduced its burden regarding debt servicing. Therefore, it is totally wrong to say that the debt is putting considerable pressure on federal public finances.

The federal government cannot say that it improved debt management by balancing budgets year after year, at the expense of the provinces and the unemployed—because there is also the surplus in the employment insurance fund—and claim at the same time that this debt puts undue pressure on federal public finances.

The reality is that, for four years now, there have been savings on the order of $2.5 billion annually in debt management. These are not pressures: quite the opposite. Servicing the debt has become less onerous.

Also in connection with the debt, I would like an explanation as to why, overall, we are paying down the least expensive debt. By creating surpluses and achieving a AAA credit rating, compared to an A or an A+ on average in Canada, the federal government benefits from much lower costs than the provinces with respect to servicing the debt. How is it that, every year since 1997, it has, with a AAA rating, been paying down the debt which costs Canada the least, rather than reapportioning fiscal resources between itself and the provinces so that the provinces, whose debt servicing costs are much higher, can pay down this debt, which is being shouldered by the same taxpayer.

People must get it into their heads that, when it comes to paying taxes to the federal government, to the Government of Quebec or to the Canadian provinces, there is only one taxpayer opening his wallet. The government is not doing a comprehensive analysis of public finances so as to be able to say that it will use fiscal resources in the best way possible.

The federal government is building up the surplus with the measures it has taken in recent years, the deep spending cuts. The tax structure is such that the bulk of revenues come from personal income taxes, providing phenomenal possibilities for generating surpluses year after year.

Even during a period of economic slowdown—last year, we were warned of the most terrible apocalypse—, we are told that for the first nine months of the current fiscal year, the federal surplus tops $13 billion.

This means that even bearing in mind the new initiatives announced in the December budget, which totalled approximately $4 billion, even bearing in mind the six-month postponement in instalment payments for businesses, the very least we can expect, as we predicted, is a surplus in the neighbourhood of $6 or $7 billion.

The people over there keep on trying to take us for a ride, thinking that we will take at face value all the figures they come up with, and their statement that “Come on now, we are not in a position to create the huge surpluses you claim we can create”. Perhaps not, but since there have started being surpluses, and since we have been forecasting figures, we have been coming within 2% or 3% of the truth.

How is it that, with all the public servants at his disposal, our so-called finance minister says just about anything when he gets up here during oral question period? I will come back to yesterday's oral question period a little later on. He tells us “You guys are all wrong, you are barking up the wrong tree”.

Since 1997, we have been releasing our surplus forecast. We hide nothing, we do not close our books. They are open. We do things publicly. We hold press conferences and technical briefings for the press to explain our surplus forecasts. We are dead on. As for this so-called Minister of Finance, he gets by even when he is telling the biggest whoppers possible about the annual surplus. Even when he pays such a disservice to democracy, he manages to survive criticism.

At some point, one thing will have to be realized. It is totally undemocratic to tell us that there will be no surplus, to deliberately conceal the surplus, to put on a good show as a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, at the expense of the taxpayer, at the expense of democracy. There will have to be a wake up call at some point.

Returning to our tax imbalance, I will address the two examples of yesterday. During oral questions period, the Minister of Finance responded with insults. It made no sense, nor does it make any sense that the press did not pick up on it. In Quebec City, people would be calling for the resignation of a finance minister who said such a thing. It is as simple as that. He dares say anything and everything, and gets away with it.

The federal government has really backed away from its commitments. It has such fantastic surpluses year after year that programs, which were originally cost-shared, in the areas of health, education and income security, that is 50-50 between it and the provinces, have now reached unprecedented levels. The federal government's contribution is the lowest in history.

The federal government now funds only 14% of spending in health care. In education, contributions are at a record-low 8%. I remind the House that at the outset, the cost of these programs was shared 50:50. Yet, we now find ourselves in the current situation.

Of course, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, whose nickname is the troublemaker, because he stirs it up wherever he goes, will answer back “Of course not. The federal government's contribution is much higher than that. It is important to take into account the tax points”.

It takes a demagogue to describe the situation like that. The tax points were given, in Quebec's case, in the 1960s because Quebec wanted to set up its own programs, for example for scholarships, for the hospital system and for health care. Subsequently, the Canadian provinces understood that it was to their benefit to also demand tax points. They did so in 1977 and in 1978. They were given them.

When you give something away, it no longer belongs to you. When you sell your house, you cannot come back 30 years later and tell the new owner that you still have rights over it. It no longer belongs to you. It is the same thing when it comes to taxes. They were given.

They were so clearly given away, and it is so clear in our minds, except for the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that even federal Liberal advisers are telling them to stop repeating such nonsense. Allow me to mention a few of them by name: Tom Kent, a well known Liberal adviser. Tom Kent, do you know him? The Liberal party adviser. He said that it was wrong of the federal government to claim that tax points were a part of its contribution to health care. He said this a few months ago.

There is also Robin Boadway, professor of economics at Queen's University. We are not talking about l'Université du Québec or l'Université de Montréal, because people might say that these professors are on our side. He is from Queen's University. Is there anything more “Canadian” than Queen's? Robin Boadway said that it was fundamentally dishonest to include tax points in the federal contribution to health care.

These men are not pulling their punches. We are not allowed to use the same kind of vocabulary here. The professor from Queen's describes the use of tax points as a federal contribution to health care, education and income security as dishonest. It must be serious for him to say that.

If tax points involved federal spending, they would appear somewhere in the public accounts or in the government's budget. They are nowhere to be seen. This is not spending that has come our way. Will they ever get it? It is ridiculous.

Let us go back to history, tax points for tax points. In 1942, the Government of Quebec, the provinces, and the federal government signed a tax agreement.

[An hon. member]

It was Godbout.

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

Right.

In 1942, the Government of Quebec, and others, handed over all tax points from personal taxes because the Canadian constitution, your constitution that you supposedly defend so passionately, includes very clear provisions regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over direct taxes. Under the spirit and the letter of the Canadian constitution, personal taxes are a strictly provincial jurisdiction.

In 1942, we temporarily relinquished this jurisdiction. In Quebec, we handed over all our personal tax points—we are nice—but only temporarily, in order to finance the war effort, on the understanding that, after the war, the federal government would withdraw from this jurisdiction it had entered illegally and has held on to. If anyone wants to talk about tax points for tax points, we can tell them a thing or two.

Using the logic of the members opposite, what does this mean? It means that the federal government cannot claim to have given Quebec and the Canadian provinces something that did not belong to it. That is what it means.

Under the Canadian constitution, this is an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. How can the federal government now claim to have handed over, in the 1960s and late 1970s, tax points from personal income, when it does not have jurisdiction in this area?

In real life, how can one give back a house that one does not own? We are not rewriting history, but let us talk about tax points for tax points. That is what this is really about.

I was saying that we are now at a turning point. The federal government must realize that it cannot continue to accumulate surpluses indefinitely, while the provinces are unable to meet health needs, which are increasing at the rate of 7% or 8% annually. With a contribution of 14 cents for each dollar invested in health, the federal government should not complain about how hard it is for it to maintain our health system.

Yet, it is these people, who claim to be in favour of a health system that is universal and accessible to all, who are speeding up the privatization process of health care in Canada.

We will not be able to survive with an underfinanced system, as is the case right now, and with arguments so demagogic that they do not stand up to scrutiny. If there is no change in the way of doing things, of considering the issue of tax imbalance, this is more or less what could happen in Quebec in nine or ten years, and also in the Canadian provinces.

In less than ten years, 85% of Quebec's program expenditures will be in health and education. This will leave 15% for all the other priorities. We cannot maintain efficient resource management under a mandate democratically given to a national assembly and leave only 15% to deal with all the priorities relating to environmental protection, international representation and regional development.

Something will have to be done. Our solution is a return of tax points. We are talking about a return because, normally, after World War II, we should have kept these tax points. But at the time, the federal government was trying to centralize, as it still is now. We are talking about very strong attempts at centralization, as the federal government has grabbed a taxation power, which is the key element here, to fund initiatives in provincial jurisdictions. Such measures are major attempts at centralization to build a unitarian state.

The government should stop talking about partnership. It is hypocritical to say that. There is no partnership between the federal government and the provinces. There is constant confrontation and conflict. It is the federal government that is responsible for these conflicts and it is also the federal government that will be responsible for the privatization of health care.

If there had been tax points in 1977 instead of tax point transfers, plus a part in cash payments for health and education, do hon. members know how much more this would have represented for the coffers of the Government of Quebec? Starting that year, there would have been $4.5 billion more than the current contribution the federal government makes to health and education.

Oh no, tax points are not a paying proposition. Our troublemaker over there—I am referring to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs—is traipsing about everywhere with his detestable paternalistic air, telling everybody they are not a paying proposition. That is what he says: tax points are not a paying proposition. Oh no, not a paying proposition. With a nearly 7% rise in personal income tax revenues, not a paying proposition? It is for the federal government, but would not be if handed over to Quebec.

A person would need to be a real demagogue to make such statements. On the equalization formula alone, he claims “You will lose equalization payments if the tax points are transferred to you”. No way. He, like the Minister of Finance, knows nothing about public finances.

As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance made two outrageous remarks yesterday. I will come back to equalization later. He said: “In 1999, the Government of Quebec had $16 billion more in income than the federal government.” I am still looking in public accounts and everywhere, even in the budgets he has tabled. He does not even know his own budgets.

I believe I know what he did. He referred to the extra $16 billion as income coming from municipal taxes, contributions to the Régie des rentes and revenue from school boards, as if the Government of Quebec could use all that to finance its own initiatives. I believe that is what he did. If that is the case, it was not very honest on his part.

Second, he said that after the special abatement of Quebec, the province' s share of personal income tax is much higher than what is believed. Actually, after the special abatement, the federal government gets around 60 per cent of personal income tax, while Quebec only gets 40 per cent. The Minister should review his numbers and stop his trash talk. Those were two outrageous remarks.

Therefore, we belive that a return of tax points is the solution.

First of all, there should automatically be an adjustment of federal transfers in health and education to take into account the cuts which have occurred since 1994. This means we should come back to the level of 1994 and transform it immediately in tax points. We should eliminate the CHST, the cash payment, and replace it immediately by tax points. Finally, we should immediately launch a debate on the transfer of supplementary tax points to those I mentioned.

This is a lasting and efficient solution, which would force the federal to manage its own affairs in those two areas.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question I want to ask my colleague is very short and aimed at allowing him to keep on talking about equalization payments. He was unable to do so and I would like him to resume his speech on equalization payments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to thank my dear colleague because the issue of equalization payments is a very important one. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council goes around with documents and a slide presentation containing shameful untruths. Obviously, they only give a partial analysis.

He says that as a result of tax point transfers, equalization payments will diminish. This is wrong. It is mathematically impossible in view of the mathematical formulas used to arrive at equalization payments called equalization entitlements. The part of the formula dealing with personal income tax is such that with a transfer of tax points to the provinces, under the formula used, the result would end up being positive.

Thus, not only are we going to benefit from a tax point transfer equal to the value of cash transfers adjusted to take into account the drastic cuts made by the Minister of Finance, but by transferring tax points in such a way, the results will be positive with regard to equalization.

Therefore, the provinces that are currently on the receiving end of equalization payments will get a bit more as a result of tax point transfers. I will take this opportunity to say that it is a first step: transferring tax points equivalent to the federal contribution to health and education.

Later on, we will have to talk about another tax point transfer, because we will not have dealt with the issue of the incredible surpluses accumulating in the federal government coffers year after year. The unbalance will not have been dealt with. All that will have been done is that part of the current federal funding of health and education will have been stabilized and that provinces will have been provided with a tax tool to increase their revenues.

As I said earlier, tax points respecting personal income tax are increasing exponentially year after year, to the tune of 7% a year. The Quebec government and other provinces will have this increased capacity, which will provide them with more stable and dependable funding for health care; predictability is important too.

Currently, even though the federal government is giving $800 million here and $500 million there, there is no way to get stable and predictable funding. In spite of what the Minister of Finance does and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says, a piecemeal approach to management does not work.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his speech. All the taxpayer knows about tax points, equalization, income tax and so on is the amount of tax he or she must pay. To gain a better understanding of what it is all about, it takes a good explanation like the one the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot just gave us.

The member explained clearly that, in the beginning, in the spirit of Confederation, direct taxation was the responsibility of the provinces, even though the federal government had the authority to legislate in that area under section 92(3). But it was clearly stated that direct taxation was the responsibility of the provinces.

Then the member explained that in 1942, the provinces, including Quebec, agreed to leave the tax field to the federal government for the war effort. We saw that the federal government never withdrew from it.

I do not have the figures in front of me—I am sure the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot knows all that—but corporate income tax did not increase at the same pace as personal income tax, and if there is no change, this will result in fiscal strangulation because of rising health care costs.

The purpose of asking for tax points is simply to correct an error that was made at the time of World War II when the field of personal income tax was not left to the provinces. Had that been the case, I am sure that we would not have the same problem. I would like the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is absolutely right. Not only have corporate taxes not increased, but they have decreased compared to Canada's gross domestic product.

As for federal personal income tax, it has increased since 1976-77. Let us look at how things stood in 1976-77, before the federal government transferred tax points to the provinces. The principle involved is simple. The federal government withdrew from a tax field to make room for the provinces, but overall the taxes did not increase, because the federal tax was simply replaced with a provincial tax.

In 1976-77, before the transfer of tax points, the federal revenues from personal income tax represented 7.3% of our GDP. After the transfer of tax points in 1977-78, that percentage dropped to 6.3%. But let us look at what the government has done since. They got back everything they gave up and did not even belong to them. They got back everything they gave up to the provinces in tax points.

By 1986-87, federal revenues from personal income tax had increased from 6.3% to 7.4% of our GDP. In 1998-99, with the hidden income tax increases designed by the finance minister, they had reached 8.1% of the GDP. So, the minister more than made up for what he gave up in 1977-78, again on the backs of taxpayers.

In fact, when you really look at it, the government did not give anything up at all. It has made money by increasing personal income tax in the last 15 years. In addition, it has given up something that did not belong to it. Then, it only gave up a part of something that did not belong to it. Consequently, the provinces and the Quebec government should in fact be asking the federal government to withdraw completely from personal income tax and to leave it to the provinces. This would be much more logical and it would respect the intent of the Canadian Constitution.

This is rather special. They claim to be complying with the Canadian constitution. They are fighting for it. They even patriated it against Quebec's wishes and without it's consent in 1982, but at the same time, they are not complying with it. Do you know why? Because the people opposite have a plan for centralization. This vision of one Canada with its nation building and its one country, one nation approach, we see it being implemented right here.

We have got news for them. Even though they are out to grab a taxation power in the area of public finances, which belongs to the Government of Quebec, we will soon make a decision that will allow us to build our own state. We will stop going down on our knees in front of them to try to obtain tax points. Quebecers have had enough of this. Look at all the polls. The members across the way take people for fools. People understand a lot of things, even though the subject of public finances is complex. They understand that in the end, Paul Martin is telling them tall tales.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot knows very well that he cannot use the minister's name. He must say “the Minister of Finance”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I got carried away. As for the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the public knows that these two individuals are telling them tall tales, that it is wrong to say, on the one hand, that they have surpluses coming out their ears but that, at the same time, they do not have enough money to repair the damage they have done to the health and education sectors. They understand that the needs are in Quebec and in the provinces. Look at all the polls. People are saying that there are two priority sectors: health and education. It is plain to them, despite all the propaganda.

They have received nice little publications with the maple leaf front and centre telling them that health is a priority and that education is an investment. People can see through this advertising. They are not taken in, because they know that 14¢ of every health dollar comes from the federal government. The rest comes from the Government of Quebec. Bernard Landry and Pauline Marois are doing everything they can to come up with money to shore up the health and education sectors. People know this. They recognize real as opposed to feigned efforts.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege for me to get involved in the debate today. One of the problems we all face in health care is trying to deliver in a timely and efficient manner a service that has increased dramatically in cost while attempting to deal with the multitude of problems Canadians see.

Through discussions I have had I believe most people in Canada wish to see a health care system: first, that they can count on; second, that delivers the service in a timely and efficient manner; third, that makes sure doctors and nurses are available where they are needed; and fourth, that offers people affordable access to the prescription drugs they need.

Canadians are finding major problems with health care. A large group of people do not have the health care services that should be afforded to them. In the area I live in thousands of people are without a family doctor because there are not enough doctors to cover all families. People go to clinics or hospitals for health services and they receive them. However there is a doctor shortage in rural Canada and in smaller cities. We do not seem to be dealing with the question as well as we need to.

There are many reasons for the doctor shortage. First, we do not have a proper number of facilities to train health care professionals. A great deal of change needs to occur in our training and approval process to make sure we have adequate health care professionals be it doctors, nurses or technicians.

Second, 10 to 15 years ago dramatically incorrect assumptions were made which led to the crunch on doctors and nurses today. Many older doctors in Canada had gone on and on with their practices and never retired. In estimating how many doctors we would need in the year 2002 it was not taken into account that many of these doctors would take retirement. As a result we are short in that field.

We did not take into account the number of specialists we would have in the system. Those who specialize in obstetrics or various illnesses have been taken out of the general practice system. As a result the numbers of doctors to carry on family practice has been limited dramatically.

A new phenomena today is that there are clinics in many areas. Many doctors operating in clinics may not be able to handle the long term illnesses of seniors or people with cancer or other debilitating illnesses which require long term care. As a result family doctors are being more heavily burdened with patients who have long term illnesses that take up a dramatic amount of time.

I do not think anyone anticipated the high cost of drugs and medication. If we look at our medical costs today we need to add up not only the costs of hospital care, clinics, family doctors and specialists but the extremely rapidly growing cost of medications. These add to the system as well.

What has happened between the federal and provincial governments is a fight over who pays the bills. In the House today this is one of the areas we are managing. However I hope the debate does not stay limited to who pays the bills and whose responsibility it is. Although these are important questions for all of us it is more timely and important to look at critical issues in our ridings that Canadians face and that we need to deal with.

In my riding of Chatham--Kent Essex there is a young man who requires bone marrow transplants. He is a 24 year old gentleman by the name of Patrick Oxley. Last summer he was diagnosed as requiring a bone marrow transplant. His sister is a perfect match for him but over a six month period the operation did not occur. He has been sent back to the Windsor and Chatham area. The doctors have suggested they will not go on with the operation. This young 24 year old man has no future unless an operation occurs because the disease is deadly.

In my estimation and I believe in the estimation of all Canadians the situation is not appropriate. It is not an issue that can be sloughed aside. We must deal with issues of health care costs and immediate on time delivery so young men like Patrick Oxley will have an opportunity in the future.

There are people in the United States who are willing to operate on Mr. Oxley. The price tag is $100,000 U.S. The community of Chatham--Kent Essex is trying to draw together funds and donations to send Mr. Oxley to Michigan for an operation. Our health care system should be looking after this young man. When he had a perfect match several months ago it should have been dealt with. It should have been a high priority for the Canadian health care system.

Others look on this with a great deal of criticism and stress. If we are not delivering service to Canadians we are missing the real traditional value of the Canadian health care system. It must be dealt with at a federal-provincial level and at all levels.

As an example I have pointed out that thousands of people in my area do not have family doctors because of the shortage of doctors. This means there are many problems in the system. How do we handle the problems? The federal government has taken a strong position in trying to deal with the issues. It has appointed an independent person in the name of Roy Romanow to go across the country, look as carefully as he can at the health care system and come back with recommendations for improvement. The federal government is taking the preliminary steps required to search out the problems.

Mr. Romanow has pointed out clearly in his approach that he is addressing the key themes he has organized his work around. He wants feedback from professionals and everyone across the country on how Canadian values can be reflected in the health care system and how we can do so within the Canada Health Act.

We need to look at sustainability and funding, both important elements in where the health care system goes from this day on. We need to look at quality and access. These issues are not only important today. They will be important to all Canadians in the future. We need to look at leadership, working together and responsibility. We have a responsibility to all Canadians for our health care system.

One of the problems we have as Canadians is the guidelines in the Canada Health Act. The guidelines are not administered by the federal government. The federal government's role has been to work with a health act which ensures all Canadians have basic access to a health care system and certain types of services.

The federal government's role has also been to help finance the costs of health care across the country. Whatever is said and done it is important to realize that all governments, provincial, territorial and federal, must ensure the principles of the Canada Health Act are carried out. We must ensure all Canadians have an equal opportunity for good, decent health care. One of the fundamental privileges of living in Canada is access to good medical care, a privilege which has been built over the years by our forefathers and other people in the country.

The debate comes down to finances. That is a crass, hard way to look at health care. We must stop and think about the fact that we are missing something in the whole debate. If the debate is only about transfer payments to the provinces, agreements that have been made in the past, or blaming one government over the other we miss the important tenet that health care is for Canadians. All Canadians deserve the best health care possible. We must devise plans to move forward in the future.

I mentioned that the Romanow commission was one response the federal government had to move the agenda forward. It is a means of getting input from Canadians and coming up with an agenda to deal with health care, drug costs and all the issues that will be important to Canadians in the future. Over the short term we cannot say Mr. Romanow's report will have a major effect. It is not due until next December.

What have we been doing in the shorter term? It is important to point out to all Canadians that we worked with the provinces in last year's negotiations to put extra dollars into the health care system. In our 2001 budget we confirmed federal spending would be $23.4 billion more over the next five years than it had been for any period up to that point. We came up with an agreement which all provincial health ministers and premiers supported. It was supported by our Prime Minister, the House of Commons and the Minister of Health of the day. We attempted to inject a larger number of dollars into the health care system to make it go further and be healthier on a short term interim basis, the five year base, while giving us room to operate and find out what we need to do.

In his comments and direction Mr. Romanow said there were no sacred cows in the process. He said everything will be up for debate. He said everything will be there to make sure we have a system which will not only be functional but will deliver services to Canadians as need be.

We added $23 billion to bolster the costs of health care. What was the response from the provincial governments? I found it a bit problematic.

The response from the Harris government was “You're not giving us enough money”. It had just finished negotiating a deal with the federal government in which all provinces were included and the first answer from the premier of my province, Ontario, was that there was not enough money. He was not saying “We will match the funds that are going into the system” or “We will do everything we can with the resources that have been provided”, but was suggesting that Canada was not paying its full share.

I guess we can always look at different arguments and different points of view. I heard my former colleague, a gentleman from across the way, suggest that we cannot go back to a 1977 agreement and talk about tax points when we are talking about funding of health care. I do not know why we do not look back to the past and see how funding has occurred and look at the types of changes that have occurred in the funding of health care to see if we are being fair, adequate and honest with the Canadian public.

It is my view that when we reduced cash transfers to the provinces and handed them another vehicle by which they could raise that much money, plus it took into account increases over the years, we gave the provinces tremendous extra leeway in operating their own systems independently and doing it without as much need for cash transfers from the federal government.

I remember being elected and coming here in 1988. The buzz at that time was that we should make all transfers to the provinces on tax points. People were talking about not giving any cash transfers to the provinces any more but taking the whole cost of our social transfer, putting it onto tax points and allowing the provinces to operate independently. An obvious problem with this is that then the federal government gives up its responsibility to make sure all Canadians have fair and equal access to service. That is a problem.

I understand our colleagues from Quebec saying they would like all the transfers to go to Quebec, they would like Quebec to have a totally independent system and, as a result, they want to eliminate the federal government from health care. However, at the same time who guarantees that all people in all provinces get equal treatment in this country? Who would guarantee that all Canadians would have access to equal treatment in this country? That is problematic. That needs to be dealt with. It cannot be left to 13 or 12 independent bodies to decide how service is delivered, because we all know some areas are wealthier than other areas and therefore the wealthier areas would be able to afford a service that the poorer areas could not. That is not the Canadian way. That is not fair to all people. It is not what we see as a principle of health care in this country: how large one's wallet is and how much we can afford to make sure we deliver the service required.

Many issues have to be dealt with and I believe all issues within the health care system are critically important, but it seems to me that when people criticize someone they should have certain kinds of capabilities of analyzing what has happened in front of them. I do not know if most people realize that federal funding for health care in Ontario, and I am using the province of Ontario as an example at this point, is at an all time high. We have never funded health care in Ontario as much we do today. Federal funding for health care across Canada is at an all time high. People may argue about how it is being done, and that is true, but federal funding is at an all time high. I think it is important to realize that over 91% of the total increase in Ontario's health care budget this year comes from federal transfers, from the federal government. That is a pretty heavy cost for the federal government.

I believe the Ontario government has a problem. It has not looked very carefully at funding programs. It has directed its concerns toward tax cuts. Several other provinces may be looking at tax cuts as well, but generally we have to make certain that the basic services are there before we do tax cuts.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I was amazed to hear the member talk about health care funding being at an all time high in Ontario. Of course if we look at the real value of the dollars we see an entirely different story. We can buy a car today for $25,000 that a few years ago we could have bought for $10,000, so let us be realistic about this all time high funding.

Maybe he would like to talk about a province like Newfoundland and Labrador, where not only are we getting fewer dollars because of a declining population, but because the young people are leaving and we are stuck with an aging population, health care demands are that much higher. How does he rationalize the fact that this province is suffering because of the way the federal government has cut back on health care funding?

We can look at the richer provinces with increasing populations and say “Look at all we are doing”, but what are we doing for Canadians generally? The answer in health care is that we are doing a pretty darn poor job.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to answer my colleague's question.

I think it is important to realize that as a confederation Canada has always made sure that the poorer regions, the regions under greater stress, the regions that need extra help, do get extra help. I would suggest quite clearly that the number of dollars in the health care system has increased dramatically. At this time, if we add the tax transfers to the cash transfers, $34.6 billion is being spent in Canada on those items. At the same time, we have social transfers to provinces that have more problems. Through departments such as Human Resources Development there have been and are programs to help people in weaker provinces, provinces with higher unemployment, provinces with difficulties.

Therefore it is not only the dollars that are going to the health care system to help Newfoundland and Labrador or to help Atlantic Canada, it is the dollars that go into all of our social transfers, the dollars that go into our stabilization payments, and the dollars that go into programming to make certain that all Canadians have access to services.

Quite frankly, I know there are some areas that have a little more difficult times than others, but over the years we as Liberals always have worked hard to defend those areas and make sure they got reasonable payments.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the member to task about some of the numbers he is using regarding tax credits and actual dollars. Let us look at actual dollars. We are not even back to the 1993 level of actual dollar transfers to the provinces. We are still $500 million short in spite of the fact that inflation is up by 15% and the population is up by 8%. Knowing full well the concerns that Canadians have about proper funding for health care and the whole issue of health care in general, the government in its budget in December did not address how this will be structured in the years to come and there was no new funding.

The fact remains that over all the years the cuts the government has made to transfer payments amount to $25 billion. No matter how we add up the numbers, the fact is that transfer payments have been short $25 billion since 1993. I would like the member to clarify those facts.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is very important to look at those numbers, but I believe that when we say we can look at only at half the question and not the whole question, we do mislead to a degree the whole perception of what is accurate and what has been done.

However, I want to point out that in 1994-95 the cash and tax transfers to the provinces from the federal government were $29.4 billion. In 2001-02 the same transfers amount to $34.6 billion, an increase of approximately $5 billion, or a 17% increase, so while my hon. colleague mentioned that inflation has gone up 15%, in my book this is 2% above inflation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that Canadians from coast to coast to coast really ignore what any of the Liberals have to say. We had the comment from the previous industry minister, Mr. Tobin, who was once quoted as saying the drug patent law would destroy pharmacare for seniors. He was right, but when he became the industry minister years later he turned around and supported the additional extension of the drug patent law. This government also turned around and gave an insulting disability tax credit form to 106,000 Canadians, which changed their disability position.

How does the member expect Canadians to believe a single word any of the Liberals say when it comes to health care? They are the government and they are responsible for the adequate funding of health care from coast to coast to coast and right now, as we speak, under their government we have a 13 tier system in our country.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the administration for health care has, since the inception of Canada, been a provincial responsibility. It is not under control of the federal government.

I take up the challenge, though, when my hon. colleague from across the way suggests that people do not listen to the federal government. It seems to me that in the poll I saw yesterday, the NDP had 9% of the people supporting it, which generally would mean its rate of popularity, of being listened to, is 9%. Right now the Liberal government has a 55% support rate.

The fact is that people know this Liberal government has worked hard and is working hard in their interests. People know that we try to serve the Canadian public as well as we can and they know the government has been responsible since being elected. There is no question about our track record of being responsible, bringing the issues forth to the public and dealing with them in an open forum like we are with the Romanow report.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much time left for questions and comments, but I am a bit surprised to hear the hon. member say that the federal government is involved in health in order to protect all Canadians and to ensure that all Canadians receive the same level of health care.

We are trying to figure out where he got this. In the constitution, health is a provincial area of jurisdiction. Here is an analogy: for example, defence comes under federal jurisdiction according to the constitution. In order to keep an eye on the federal government's handling of defence, the provinces could perhaps give themselves a privilege, saying “We will strike a committee to monitor the federal government and see whether it is distributing defence-related services equally across Canada”. In my opinion, such a statement would be contrary to the spirit of confederation, which is a division of responsibilities.

Where does it say in the Canadian Constitution that health care is a federal responsibility? Where does he get this?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I never once said that health care is a federal jurisdiction. I did say that the federal government has the responsibility to help Canadians. I did say that all Canadians deserve equal health care. I do believe that we have a national Canada Health Act which is a guide for all provinces, for the federal government and for everyone in the country on the kinds of service delivery required.

On top of that, we finance 35% of the cost of health care in the country through the federal government. As a result we do have a voice at the table. Although we do not administer the programs, it is important that we have a voice at the table, it is important that we protect the weaker provinces and it is important that we protect all Canadians equally.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the question, but I am going to focus as promptly as possible on the motion the House is addressing at the present time. I would like to reread it:

That this House condemn the government for withdrawing from health-care funding, for no longer shouldering more than 14 per cent of the costs of health care, and for attempting to invade provincial areas of jurisdiction by using the preliminary report by the Romanow Commission to impose its own vision of health care.

The statement the hon. member has just made about the last part of the speech by the member across the way refers to the end of it. The federal government claims it has no responsibility to deliver, to assume, health care in the provinces. It is not in the constitution. He admits that. But at the same time he says: “Yes but the federal government has already paid a considerable amount for health care and has passed legislation establishing national standards”. There are five or six principles, including accessibility. He says: “Since we are spending money, even if it is not in the constitution, we want the federal government to have a say”.

Now, it seems there has always been a misunderstanding about health and education. It is mainly the case in those two areas of jurisdiction. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned it earlier. According to projections, in 2010-11, this will represent 85% of the Government of Quebec's spending if nothing is done to change the cost sharing. The same thing goes for the other provinces.

Basically, if nothing is done to gradually bring this fiscal strangulation to an end, this will be the end result. The federal government has reduced its contribution to health and education funding since the abolition of the Canada social transfer, but at the same time it wants to force its own standards on provinces. It is within that perspective that Mr. Romanow is reviewing the system. It is to change the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

Before the first world war, there was no federal income tax for services, none for health and education. Moreover, in the early days of Confederation, before the creation of the Supreme Court, the Privy Council in London was responsible for settling disputes between the provinces and the federal government. On two or three occasions, disputes were settled before the Privy Council in London. Each time, when direct taxes were an issue—even though it was about private matters provinces considered direct taxation to be in their area of jurisdiction—, the Privy Council supported the provincial governments' position regarding personal income tax.

As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot reminded us earlier, during the second world war the federal government asked for more and again asked the provinces' permission—as it had done during the first world war—to collect personal income taxes. This was for a very urgent and important purpose, funding the war effort.

Each time, the provinces allowed the federal government to collect personal income taxes. But after the second world war, having had a taste of personal income tax and finding it easier to ask, the federal government asked the provinces to turn it over for good. At the time, both Ontario and Quebec objected, while the other provinces said “Fine. The federal government can collect taxes as long as we get our fair share”. The provinces agreed, except for Quebec and Ontario.

Finally, under huge pressure, Ontario eventually yielded to the federal government and let it collect personal income taxes in exchange for cash transfers to fund certain types of care.

But Quebec, then under Maurice Duplessis, had objected. It finally decided to raise its own personal income taxes and to set up its own ministry. As a matter of fact, Quebec is the only province with a revenue ministry. It has all the officials and the means needed to collect personal income taxes.

The motion before us today deals with health care. I will remind the House that this is a nearly exclusively provincial jurisdiction.

My colleague, the health critic and member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, will confirm what I am saying, but the federal government has jurisdiction over which drugs may be put on the market. This is an area of federal jurisdiction. The federal government decides whether a product is a drug or a medication. It is responsible for labelling tobacco a dangerous product or not. Then there is the whole debate on marijuana—and we are aware of this whole aspect because under the criminal code, the federal government has jurisdiction in this area. But it has never been the intent of the constitution or the confederation for the federal government to have the slightest responsibility for health care or education. But today, we are talking about health care.

However, the federal government, with its spending authority, but especially since the second world war, waded into this area. Some provinces wanted to take part, others did not. The federal government wanted to encourage them by saying, “provinces wishing to intervene in health care can do so, and we will give up to 50%”. This lasted for a while. Then, Ontario found itself in a situation where it was spending at a level higher than the other provinces; the federal government then set a ceiling.

I mentioned it a number of times, and some of my colleagues also said so after travelling across Canada with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development during the social program reform—the famous Canada health and social transfer—that when funding for health, education and social assistance was combined, the government used the opportunity to cut the accessibility to employment insurance, which was known as unemployment insurance at the time. A number of provinces, the Atlantic provinces in particular, said that they would have preferred the federal government give them money to provide health care.

However, the province of Quebec maintained, “you recognize us as a distinct society, as a distinct province, so let us keep our taxes so that we can respect the spirit and the letter of the constitution in matters of health”. This idea was never greeted favourably.

Even the constitution scares this government. They do not respect its spirit. The member who spoke before me said, “yes, but since we are spending so much money, the federal government should have its say”.

What he should have said, and what would be more realistic, is that the government should ensure its visibility in health and other fields. Yet, we see the federal health department putting out ads on all sorts of topics, even erectile dysfunction—I see this brings smiles to the faces of other members—in a field that does not concern it; it is paying for ads simply to give the federal government some visibility.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. Let us be serious. The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.