Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Calgary Southeast.
In my presentation I will talk first about some directing principles of the Canadian Alliance policy in this area. Second, I will talk about health care and how the motion applies to health care. Third, I will talk about the spending power.
Whatever motivated the government in the past, it is clear that the complex fiscal agreements signed between the federal government and the provinces over the years cannot be abruptly set aside without causing some serious problems.
We, in the Canadian Alliance, believe that the governments should first and foremost try to reach an agreement on the appropriate relations to establish. Then, the current agreements would have to be reviewed to see how different they are from the goals set. Finally, a step-by-step problem solving plan would have to be developed. It will not be easy, but it is in the interest of all governments to be able to rely on rules-based long-term stable planning.
We recommend that the federal and provincial governments agree on the following five issues before embarking on a reform of their financial relations.
First, there is only one taxpayer, and Canadians do not want to pay for any overlap and duplication; second, the federal government should respect the provincial areas of jurisdiction as set in the constitution; third, wherever they live, Canadians are entitled to reasonably similar services; fourth, the federal government's involvement in services provided in areas for which it provides financial support should be proportional to its financial contribution; and fifth, rules regarding federal contribution to the provinces should promote provincial autonomy.
I will turn now to the second part of my presentation regarding health care.
We in the Canadian Alliance believe that normally the provinces, as the level of government closest to the people being served, should have the right to determine day to day administrative policies in their area of responsibility, including health care.
Moreover, clear respect by Ottawa for provincial jurisdiction would promote efficiency since remote federal bureaucracy will never have the same knowledge as will provincial governments of local conditions and local priorities.
We believe that the federal and provincial governments should jointly develop national standards in health. One way would be to consider a national standard when it is supported by a majority of provinces representing a majority of the Canadian population. When the standards are established there must be an impartial arbiter to decide whether the standards have been respected.
The current situation where the federal government, under the Canada Health Act, is the judge, the jury, the prosecuting attorney, the executioner and the complaining party with regard to alleged violations of the Canada Health Act, is clearly arbitrary and unacceptable.
What Ottawa can do better than the provinces is provide the research and the expertise necessary to determine how our national standards compare with international trends. Another role for the federal government is to assist in rationalizing the delivery of services across provincial borders. We therefore support the transfer of tax points from the federal government to the provinces. This would ensure stable, long term funding and would grow as provincial economies grow thereby ensuring that provinces enjoy the increase in funds over time that is necessary as their populations age to ensure satisfactory health care.
I should say that the four provinces for which the transfer of tax points is insufficient, it would be necessary to provide additional block funds for those supplementary amounts.
I turn now to the spending power.
Although financial agreements work well in practice—after a few major battles—few issues undermine more federal-provincial relations generally, and relations between Quebec and Ottawa in particular, than spending power.
Ottawa has a habit of interfering directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and Quebec is insistent when it comes to the division of powers established in 1867, which provide for Quebec to establish priorities as it sees fit.
Even Pierre Elliot Trudeau, prior to entering federal politics, believed that spending power should only apply in areas of federal jurisdiction. However, when he became Prime Minister, he understood the “virtue” of federal spending in areas of provincial responsibility.
In 1969 he proposed launching a new program in an area of provincial responsibility only if there was a real consensus among the provinces. As well, no province that wanted to opt out would suffer any financial penalties.
All of the governments of Quebec, since Maurice Duplessis at least, have called for restrictions on federal spending power. This request is always raised at constitutional negotiations.
The Canadian Alliance believes that the rules should be clear for everyone and are therefore suggesting that the federal government adopt the following three rules unilaterally. One, Ottawa could only impose a cost shared program in an area of provincial jurisdiction only if it had the support of seven provinces representing 50% of the population, in other words, a consensus. Two, the provinces that opt out of a program should be under no obligation to implement it to be compensated based on comparability; and three, compensation should be equal to federal spending per capita in the provinces that do take part.
We are also proposing that the federal-provincial cost shared programs be subject to review periodically.
I think that if one were to use these general principles, they would go a long way toward dealing with the fiscal imbalance that exists between the federal government and the provinces in a way that is sensitive to our federal structure and to the diversity that exists between the needs of the various provinces while maintaining a healthy and necessary respect for those programs that unify us all and in which we all seek to have some form of national consensus or national standard, such as health care.