Debates of Feb. 13th, 2004

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the people who are just tuning in understand this finance related bill, the equalization payments are running out at the end of the federal government's fiscal year, March 31, and we need to put a provision in place. Negotiations are underway to renew them but if the negotiations are not finished in time we need to have a stop-gap measure in place to make sure the provinces continue to get their funding.

The second part allows for the provision of the $2 billion transfer to the provinces that the Prime Minister just announced. I am sure no one would be against that. It is a very high priority among Canadians to transfer this money for health care. Health care is a high priority and I am sure everyone would be in favour of this administrative measure in the bill to transfer that money.

The finance minister is meeting with the provinces and territories later this month to continue the negotiations. People should be secure in the fact that if and when new arrangements are made they will supersede anything in the bill and will be retroactive to April 1 so that any new arrangements will be taken into account.

As the member from Newfoundland just outlined very eloquently, the provinces need the money and we must ensure that the money keeps flowing to the provinces so they can provide the essential services, such as health care and education, to their citizens.

Bill C-18 is an act respecting equalization and it authorizes the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health. We also have a motion for the legislation to be referred to committee.

The bill is designed to achieve two goals which relate to Canada's system of federal transfer payments. First, the bill would enable the continuation of equalization payments while the renewal legislation is finalized.

Second, the bill would provide the federal government with the authority to pay $2 billion to the provinces and territories for health, as confirmed by the Prime Minister following the recent first ministers meeting.

As my hon. colleagues are aware, the federal government, in partnership with the provinces and territories, plays a key role in supporting the Canadian health system and other social programs.

The large majority of federal transfers are delivered through four major programs: the Canada health and social transfer, equalization, territorial formula financing and the health reform transfer.

Today's bill deals only with equalization and the CHST. Collectively, these programs represent 2.4% of the nation's GDP. Another way of looking at it, and probably more relevant, is that it constitutes approximately 18% of the Government of Canada's budget. Either way, it is a significant sum of money.

I will not be talking about the territorial formula financing right now. I will be talking about the transfer to the provinces through equalization.

Equalization is a constitutional obligation that ensures that less prosperous provinces have the capacity to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. It is not a program that transfers wealth among citizens.

Payments are unconditional. Receiving provinces are free to spend the funds on public services according to their own priorities. Payments are calculated according to the formula set out in the federal legislation. The formula responds to changing economic fortunes and circumstances of provinces and is designed to measure provinces' fiscal capacity relative to the average fiscal capacity of the five middle income provinces, which forms a threshold or a standard.

The formula puts 33 revenue sources in a basket to measure final capacity. Each province's fiscal capacity is measured relative to the middle wealthy five provinces.

The formula is dynamic and as revenues go up or down over the year, the average moves as does the fiscal capacity of each province. If any province has a good year, that affects equalization and, conversely, if any province has a bad year, that also affects equalization.

If a large province has a bad year, naturally there is a ripple effect. Population movement, as reflected in the 2001 census, also affects the flow of payments.

The good news is that over the past 20 years, with all the ups and downs of all the nation's provinces, there has been a slow but steady decline in fiscal disparities.

I am sure, as a nation, we would all hope for that. I am sure none of us would want to move ahead in prosperity, in our ability to take care of our families, in health care and in education if the rest of our brethren in Canada were not able to progress with us.

At the same time, equalization payments are subject to a floor provision which provides protection to the provincial governments against unexpected and large sudden decreases in equalization payments. The floor limits the amount by which a province's entitlements can decline from one year to the next.

Federal and provincial officials review the equalization program on an ongoing basis to ensure that differences in the capacity of provinces to raise revenues are measured as accurately as possible.

In addition, and central to today's debate, is the fact that equalization legislation is renewed every five years to ensure that the review is undertaken and that the integrity of fundamental objectives to the program are preserved. As I said earlier, that is exactly what is occurring right now.

The last renewal was in 1999, and the current legislation is set to expire on March 31, 2004. Discussions on the five year renewal are underway but may not take place exactly on April 1, 2004, and, of course, we would not want to have a gap in the government's administrative authority just to make these payments.

Briefly, the bill would give the Minister of Finance the authority to make these equalization payments according to the current formula for up to a year in the event that the new legislation is not in place by April 1.

The bill would ensure an uninterrupted stream of equalization payments following March 31. It is basically an insurance policy to ensure the continuation of payments while renewal legislation is finalized.

Passage of the bill will ensure the public services provinces fund equalization program will continue to be protected for the benefit of their citizens. Of course, when passed, the renewal legislation will supercede this legislation. When the full renewal legislation is passed it will be made retroactive to April 1, 2004.

The renewal legislation would ensure that the program remains up to date and that the best possible calculations and data are used to determine equalization payments.

As I indicated, until the renewal legislation is introduced and passed, hon. members should regard the measures in Bill C-18 as insurance to continue payments, given that the impacts on receiving provinces could be very significant without legislation. It really appears just administrative so I cannot imagine anyone here voting against allowing us to continue payments to the provinces.

The second part, as I said earlier, is related to health. It would allow the Prime Minister's commitment to the provinces and territories of $2 billion for health care. This constitutes 1.7% of the nation's GDP.

I could go through all this technical information on the health transfer but I do not think I will because the technicality of this has been well outlined. We just want to continue the equalization payments until a new deal is in place and to transfer the $2 billion in health care to which I am sure no one objects.

What I will do now is reinforce the whole concept of equalization. I think equalization is one of the things Canadians point to as being the greatness of our nation. All Canadians want to see each and every one of us succeed and we help each other. In my community, any time there is a tragedy or an emergency the whole community falls in behind the person or the family with the problem.

The nation works like that when one province has a difficult time. We have a nation that is probably bigger than all of Europe. It covers a huge geographic and demographic area with different cultures and economies. Anything can happen to affect any of those areas. It can be seen even more rapidly in the new global environment. Under those circumstances we want to stick together. We want to progress as a people. We want to ensure that everyone progresses together and that the rising tide raises all boats together.

Canadians are a very compassionate people and that is what equalization allows. We are all proud of that and we will make sure it continues through the bill.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-18, whose purpose is double.

It is somewhat surprising that, in the same bill, we find one part that finally transfers the $2 billion promised by Jean Chrétien and promised again by the current Prime Minister. This amount really should be transferred one way or another. It is a good idea in itself, but the amount is clearly inadequate. It is rather paradoxical and, I believe, unacceptable that this same bill is being used to extend the equalization agreement.

The equalization period is usually five years, and the current period ends on March 31, 2003. They want to extend it from 2004 to 2009, but without having real agreements with the provinces. It is rather like having an old collective agreement with a few holes and things that need fixing. We would like it to be improved. They assure us that the old agreement will apply for the entire period, unless something new is negotiated.

We would have preferred that the current government had done its homework on time and that we had a new equalization act that included the results of negotiations and agreements with the provinces. But the past predicts the future. We know that the Liberal government has not always kept its word on this.

Today, this is very frustrating. We can see that the surplus for the current year, ending March 31, 2004, will probably be in excess of $7 billion. The former finance minister, who is now the Prime Minister, deliberately underestimated the surplus year after year, and the new Minister of Finance is doing the same thing. On March 31, 2004, at a time when a number of provinces will be in situations where they cannot avoid a deficit, where they will be looking for money to spend on health care, the federal government will have $7 billion.

This is a government that acts as if it were a corporation. It is trying to have the largest profits possible, but it is the only stockholder. I think that the results are not what our society wants. It is true that the government must be well managed, but the bottom line is that, if the surpluses piling up do not make it possible to provide adequate services, there is no sense to it.

Yesterday, Quebec's finance minister was unable to refrain from saying so in the consultations he is holding on his own budget. It is frustrating to hear from farmers and people in social housing or other sectors in committee and see that the Quebec government does not have the money it needs to meet their needs.

Quebec and the provinces shoulder the responsibilities, and they do not have the means to obtain the money. The federal government is not responsible for front-line services in health, education, social housing nor a number of other things such as the current mad cow crisis. The federal government has not listened carefully, or it would have provided adequate funding.

In terms of this bill, we agree with the clause to invest $2 billion, as long as it is understood that this is insufficient. Additional funds are needed, and the federal government has the money. However, equalization, as it exists currently, is not sufficient for Quebec's needs and should be reviewed.

An amendment would have been a good idea. It would be appropriate. The $2 billion for health referred to in the bill should be made a recurring item. In the Bloc's opinion, such an amendment would improve the bill, make it more acceptable and ensure our support for it.

If this were a recurring item, funding would be more secure and dependable. As a result, the provinces would have a guarantee that they will not have to rely on the government's good will from one year to the next. It would be recognition that this threshold must be integrated into the health transfer payments. It would be good to have this in the bill.

We will ask that the bill be split so that these two distinct issues can be considered separately. This will be done in committee. We will likely move an amendment to make the $2 billion a recurring item.

That way, there would be two bills coming back to the House, one which would ensure that the $2 billion is paid to the provinces on a recurring basis and the other, which we will not support as it stands, to renew the equalization payment agreements.

In this part, an additional effort needs to be made over the weeks and months to come. It does not look very professional, in a country like this one, which claims to be a leader in public administration, to be living from hand to mouth. Next month, the provinces will be having to define what sort of budgets they will have for the coming year, and to make five year plans as well. Yet they do not know what they will be receiving from the federal government.

We have memories of episodes in the past when the Government of Quebec, no matter what party was in power, learned in February that it would be $200 million or $300 million under, or $500 million over.

This leads to terrible frustrations. When one learns that there was $500 million more that could have been spent in the previous year, on health for example, one sees a number of needs that could have been met. It would have been put to use if one had known it would be there to use, and people would have been pleased. Worse yet is the situation when amounts are taken away.

As for the part about equalization, it is estimated that a one year extension of the current formula would represent a net loss for Quebec. Consequently, we cannot support this legislative measure that would cause Quebec to suffer. Let us hope our suggestion to split the bill does not fall on deaf ears.

With respect more specifically to the equalization issue, the current formula is extremely flawed. It must be changed as soon as possible. We have been defending this point of view for some time now and we hope the government will listen.

This formula penalizes Quebec, gives the advantage to the federal government and accentuates the fiscal imbalance that has been established and recognized by a commission in Quebec. This commission is considered to be very reputable. It was chaired by Quebec's current finance minister, Mr. Séguin, who, in his current role, has noticed that what he saw in his task force he now sees on a daily basis in his responsibilities as finance minister.

Yet the government has not budged in this area. This would have been a good opportunity for the current government to stand out, but, as in other sectors, it is hard to see the difference between the practices of Mr. Chrétien and the new Prime Minister.

Nothing has changed on the equalization issue. The new finance minister flat out rejected the formula proposed by the provinces, and now we are faced with a no man's land. We do not know what exactly will happen. No solid proposals have been made.

The Bloc Quebecois is calling on the federal government to come back to the table with the provinces as quickly as possible in order to enter into a satisfactory agreement on equalization that would meet the provinces' needs.

If the new Prime Minister is serious about wanting to be more open toward Quebec and the provinces, he has a good opportunity to prove it by quickly negotiating in good faith so that the provinces will have the information they need to prepare their next budgets and plan for the next five years. That is what we would expect from a responsible federal government looking to implement a practice that is different from the one that existed under the former government.

The new administration is currently using the exact same practices the former administration used, and the provinces still have to beg for the money they need, money that taxpayers have paid in taxes, in a very complicated process.

The federal government collects taxes, much more than it needs, and gives a certain amount back to the provinces through the equalization program, but it controls everything. It can decide whether or not it will open the tap, depending on all sorts of conditions.

We witnessed that in the past. When provincial governments are not of the same political stripe as the federal government, the latter turns off the tap just in time. This means that the provincial government does not have the money to table a responsible budget and voters make that government pay the price, when in fact the one that is responsible for this situation is the federal government.

The current Minister of Finance said that the next real formula would be retroactive to April 1, 2004, so that, in the end, no one would lose.

However, at this point, this is still only a promise. There is no guarantee in the bill that the government will live up to that commitment. We do not know when the negotiation will conclude. In the meantime, the provinces have a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, and this is why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill in its current form.

The $2 billion health transfer must be paid as quickly as possible and this must become a recurring payment.

However, there is still a lot of work to do as regards equalization. Before we give our support to an equalization formula, we want to make sure that it will benefit Quebec.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but I wanted to make some comments about what we just heard.

During question period, the finance minister indicated that he will be meeting his counterparts as early as next weekend to try to reach an agreement on equalization. He did not promise that an agreement would be reached, but he did not say either that it would not happen.

We have to give the provincial and territorial finance ministers as well as our own finance minister time to try to reach a new agreement to set up a new equalization scheme and hopefully meet everyone's expectations.

If a new agreement cannot be reached before the end of March, that is at the end of the current fiscal year, we would find ourselves in a situation where the current program would expire. The bill before the House would extend the equalization program for an additional fiscal year, under the same terms and conditions, so that we can continue operating without any problem. However, should an agreement be reached, it could be retroactive to the beginning of the 2004-05 fiscal year.

I do not see why some people are against this bill, since we have said that we are willing to talk with the provincial governments, with our finance minister's counterparts, to determine if an agreement is possible. There is no other way about it.

If we do not want the equalization payments to stop, then we need some kind of interim measure. This is what we are proposing, all the while hoping that a new five-year equalization agreement can be reached so that provinces can more adequately plan their operations.

I do not understand why there is so much opposition to a bill that is so badly needed and would not hurt anyone.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by responding to what I have just heard. This is a very strange way to view things, in asking the provinces to sign an agreement before they can even negotiate it. It is like asking workers not to strike and to sign a collective agreement, in hopes they will agree with the employer. If an agreement with the provinces is to be reached, it must be done before the expiry date and there must be negotiations.

References have been made, for example, to the $2 billion for health. How long have we heard about this? Mr. Chrétien promised this amount, for part of last year, and this promise is being repeated. They say that to invest $2 billion in health, the equalization agreement has to be renewed for another year. This is false.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking that the federal government fulfill its obligations and give the $2 billion for health care. The bill can be split with regard to this issue. We are asking that this $2 billion be made a recurring item. It makes no sense to try to administer a province without ever knowing what will happen.

For example, Quebec, like the other provinces, is responsible for health, education and municipal affairs. It needs to know what funds it will receive. A new equalization agreement must be signed before the old one expires, so that we know what will happen under the next agreement.

However, if one law says it can be renewed for one or five years, this puts the provinces in a tight spot. They agree to what the government wants, or else the current system is renewed. This is not a logical way to work. Our system is one in which the federal government must give money to the provinces; therefore, both parties must agree.

Last year, the House hardly sat. Nothing was accomplished. Now, the bills we should have considered last fall are being reinstated one by one. Due to internal problems in the ruling party, the House did not sit. Now, the government wants to reinstate everything at the last minute, no matter what may happen to those suffering from its incompetency, as the provinces are suffering with regard to equalization.

The request of the Bloc Quebecois is quite logical. This $2 billion for health was promised a long time ago. Please, give us the money. We can split the bill. We all agree, everyone agrees with that part of the bill, and we would even want it to be a recurring item. It is quite a significant amount.

Last year, during the whole summer and autumn, we were told that the government was not sure it would have enough money to hand out this $2 billion. The government wanted us to believe that it was almost in a tough financial situation, but we now realize that there will be a $7 billion surplus. All this goes to show how hypocritical they can be. Why can they not tell the truth for once?

We are looking for the truth not only about the sponsorship scandal, but also about what is happening with equalization. I agree with what our critic said on this issue. We do not sign blank cheques. We want the bill to be split and we want to get the money for health that is owed to us under the equalization program, and we want it to become a recurrent item. We would support that part. However, let us go to the negotiation table as soon as possible. Let us not put a knife to the throats of the provinces and coerce them into signing a deal that would be similar to the current one. If we go about it this way, the provinces would not be pleased and would feel once again that they have been had.

I sat for nine years at the National Assembly of Quebec and I know the administration problems the provinces have when they do not know what transfers they can expect. The amounts owed to the provinces do not belong to the federal government, but rather to the provinces and are needed to help them discharge their obligations.

It is not logical to feel that one is at the mercy of the federal government and that they always arrange things so one is at a disadvantage in negotiations.

I am therefore totally in agreement with the Bloc Quebecois position on this and am convinced this position is shared by all the provinces, Quebec in particular of course, because we have heard that Mr. Séguin is calling for the same thing we have been saying here.

What I find deplorable about this government is the lack of justice in its legislation or in the way that legislation is applied. Someone this afternoon referred to equalization payments as they are seen by the Liberal Party over there. Among other things, it is the money involved in the sponsorship scandals which finds its way to the party's campaign funds without anyone being responsible. They saw nothing, yet half a billion dollars changed hands, and one hundred million of that half billion changed hands in an indirect manner. A strange kind of transfer payment, that.

I invite people to look into the contributions to the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois. These are public and bear no resemblance whatsoever to the contributions to the Liberal Party. I know that because I have worked in Quebec, as I said, and have had to work within the stringent rules of Quebec's legislation and we had moral standards, unlike the federal public service and the federal government.

It is, for instance, scandalous to see that seniors are being deprived of money, as are the unemployed. Only 39% of those currently out of work can collect employment insurance. Their fund has been taken over. That is another transfer payment in favour of the federal government. They helped themselves to $45 billion from the EI fund, money that belonged to workers. Not one red cent of it belongs to the government.

I do not want to hear anyone try to tell me that it is the same thing in Quebec. That is not true. The Government of Quebec has had some things to answer for, but never a scandal such as the one we have here. There are even some people on that side who are so scandalized that they dare not speak. Someone has said it is totally beyond him. What is really beyond me is that it is difficult, if not downright impossible, to get at the truth.

There is a word I would like to use, but it would be unparliamentary. Therefore I will not use it. Another word that should be considered unparliamentary is the word truth. We have very little opportunity to hear that word. What is happening defies logic.

The fact that we are constantly before a government that takes every opportunity to help its friends and then shirks responsibility if a problem arises, make no sense. They are the only ones who had not heard about what was going on, while in our ridings, everyone had. Agency representatives in my riding were shocked at what they had to do in order to get a sponsorship. It is quite unbelievable.

At any rate, we are talking about equalization. I know I have somewhat belaboured the point, but we can all agree that this equalization formula is unacceptable. With respect to the current agreement, I think it would be logical to meet with the provinces to negotiate as soon as possible in order to resolve this problem. Legislation could be passed after the negotiations, not before. The provinces should not have to renew the former agreement for another year or another five years because the government says so.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the remarks by the Bloc member who has just spoken. He made the point that certain things were scandalous.

I think this is an interesting statement from a member who sat in the National Assembly for nine years as a member of the Parti Quebecois; he is a member of a party that wants to divide a great county like Canada. We are talking about equalization between the federal and provincial governments. We know he was a member of a party that never wanted to share its money with the big cities.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, Oh.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Even though I am a member from Ontario, I understand very well that the Bloc Quebecois and its friends have always had problems in years past. They have always had problems. Yes, I touched a raw nerve there. They do not like to hear about certain things. Yet, hypocrisy is not something that happens on only one side of the House. How easily the PQ and the BQ forget that the provincial government's record shows that Quebec's cities were ignored.

And so I think it is a bit sad, perhaps, but quite unreasonable for them to take this position here—

[An hon. member]

Even to amalgamate them.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Even for the question of amalgamation. We know very well why the people, our friends in Quebec, got rid of their government.

As for the position being taken, we must be reasonable. The position taken by the government is to find ways to ensure that the money goes to benefit everyone in the country, whether they are in Ontario, Quebec, or the Maritimes. This money has to come back in order to sort out the troubling things we are finding at present, that is ensuring that there is enough money to meet commitments.

We must not do as the Bloc Quebecois wishes and create divisions. That is their philosophy: to create rifts between the other provinces and cities.

Still, I find what the hon. member about seniors and the least well-off interesting. I was the vice-chair of one of the committees examining this question. Their party was opposed to changes in the pharmaceutical patent regulations that could have lightened the financial burden on veterans and retired people.

With regard to the people who must use these medications, the Bloc protects the industry rather than the interests of seniors, people who have fought for our country and who built a country that the Bloc should be ashamed of trying to destroy.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this debate on Bill C-18 and the side issues. It is an act respecting equalization and authorizing the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health.

My good friend opposite was letting off steam and having fun. However, I think the true hypocrisy is on that side of the House across from us. A bill like this one smells of an election. Every time an election is on the horizon, the government always manages to put forward a bill that opposition parties are often forced to vote against. There is always something in the bill that does not make sense.

This time, the government could very well have paid out the $2 billion for health. If a bill were needed for that, to say that this sum should be put into a trust, as clause 6 suggests, a simple bill with very little in it would have sufficed for paying out the $2 billion.

The Liberals will be able to travel across the country, and particularly in Quebec, during the election campaign and say, “The Bloc Quebecois voted against the bill that provided $2 billion for health”. Nonsense. We are opposed to the fact that, over a period of five years, this government did not manage to negotiate equalization.

Earlier, the government chief whip and deputy House leader told us that the Minister of Finance had made a promise. When we see that ministers opposite have no memory, we cannot really trust their promises.

When we see in the bill, under clause 3, that payments are extended to March 31, 2005, without any mention of this retroactivity to April 1, 2004, we do not believe the Minister of Finance; we no longer believe this government. It has fooled us too often in recent days. We can no longer trust it.

So, a proper amendment must be included in a clause to point out that the new equalization formula will be retroactive to April 1, 2004. We cannot take any risk. If there is no retroactivity, Quebec, among others, will lose $1.5 billion. We cannot run that risk. If this formula is going to be retroactive, then let us put it in writing in the legislation. It does not cost much to include these things. Why not do it? We cannot put our trust in a promise.

What is important, as the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques pointed out, is to split the bill in two. Let us vote on the amount of $2 billion. Everyone here agrees with it. Then, the government should propose the equalization formula with an important amendment, namely the guarantee that the formula will be retroactive to April 1, 2004. If we do not have that guarantee, logic tells us to vote against this legislation. It is simple. The Liberals think they are doing fine with their majority, but they only have the support of 38% of the voters. Incidentally, I am curious to see the next poll.

I am not sure that many Canadians are proud to be Liberals today. I am not sure at all. They will have trouble finding candidates to run against us in Quebec. More and more people are hiding the fact that they are Liberals. It is a shame to have a government that would not stand for taxpayers, but would rather look out for itself, its own party, its friends and its growing bank accounts.

Again, this bill is only a parody of democracy that would have us believe that the government is generous. However, in the last five years, the former finance minister who is now Prime Minister could not reach an agreement with his provincial counterparts about an equalization program criticized by all of the provinces.

It is not only Quebec but all of the provinces that are criticizing the equalization program.

The chief whip told us that we would come to an agreement before March 31, 2004. Who does he think we are? Take a good look at me, I am no dummy. What they are doing does not make any sense. They could not come to an agreement in the last five years, but they are now sure they can make a deal within a month. It does not make any sense.

I urge the government to seriously reconsider the issue. And if the Prime Minister is really serious about a new approach to governance, a new way of doing things, he should stop acting like the previous government did and he should be more transparent and tell us exactly how things stand.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am going to be as eloquent as my colleague was, but I will try to express my point of view, which is very similar to that of all my colleagues here in this House.

I think that we have been in politics long enough and we have seen enough bills before this House to realize that this bill deals with two totally unrelated issues.

As my colleague mentioned, if we have to pass a specific bill to put these $2 billion for health in a trust, then let us do it.

But here, the government is tricking us by rolling two bills into one. It is trying to get us to swallow this when it knows perfectly well that we will not go for it.

We agree about the $2 billion. All the members would vote in favour of a bill dealing exclusively with this issue. There would be no problem; it would pass in a flash. The members opposite know that, and this is why they are trying to get us to swallow another equalization bill.

As my colleague already said, we cannot accept that. We cannot accept this bill as is. We want it split and sent back to committee. Once it is split, we will be able to consider the first part and deal with the issue of the $2 billion.

We have been talking about these $2 billion for a year. Right now, people in hospitals are waiting, emergency rooms are clogged, it is just crazy. In my community, Saint-Jérôme, ER patients have to be sent to other hospitals because of the overload.

Send us the $2 billion and stop toying with us. It is just ridiculous. The time is now. We need that money and we know what to do with it. Do not worry, when it gets into the provinces' pockets, whatever government they have in place, the money will go directly to health care, directly to the people.

What is the government waiting for to give them the money? It is toying with us again. How long will it take to pass this bill? It is just making things more complicated.

When my colleague talked about retroactivity, she was entirely correct. This is not in the bill. Will it be agreed to in committee? If not, obviously we will vote against this.

Furthermore, it is not true that negotiations will take one month because the parties have been trying to reach an agreement for five years. Not one province considers the equalization formula, in its current state, to be fair and equitable. Consequently, we are told, “We are going to propose this just in case”.

This is an election bill because we are headed for an election. So, they are taking advantage of the situation to delay things for one year, without any retroactivity. This is dishonest for the public and the provinces.

[An hon. member]

It is misrepresentation.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

It is misrepresentation and such behaviour is unacceptable. We are told that it will be our fault if this bill is not passed. The $2 billion is being held over our heads like the sword of Damocles. It is totally illogical.

For once, the government could have acted quickly and clearly. There are people who need the money the government collects from provincial taxpayers. We need only look around today to see that people are getting poorer. Only 39% of workers have access to employment insurance. What about the rest? Where do they go? They get social assistance. We know just how poor people on social assistance are. It is hell.

So the problem is offloaded on the provinces. If we do not have equalization to help us, to help those people get back on their feet and go back to work, to create jobs and pay taxes that benefit the government, then this problem will continue. That is why we need equalization.

The government should start to manage its affairs properly, to work harder, put an end to the scandals and clean house. It must clean house. It is unbelievable; I have never seen anything like this before. It is shocking.

In my riding office, the telephone never stops ringing. People simply cannot believe what is going on here.

It is not very good for politicians, whatever party they belong to, to see how money was handed out right and left to someone's buddies. It is not right and it must stop. And let no one tell me that the Prime Minister did not know. I absolutely do not believe that and I can say that the voters of Laurentides do not believe it either.

Let them put their house in order. When they have the chance to do something good, let them do it and do it right away. They should stop telling us that they are going to put things together and mix things up so that, later, they can say that we voted against the $2 billion.

The voters of Quebec are very pragmatic and they will realize why, if this bill is not divided, we will oppose it. They will understand that equalization negotiations must be retroactive for Quebec. We cannot afford to lose this money; we need it. We administer most of the programs, not the federal government. We need that money. This must be in the bill.

Clearly, I hope that amendments will be made in committee. I hope that, for once, the government will accept amendments that are logical and reasonable, and that we will finally be able to vote in favour of a sensible bill. But as it stands now, it is clear we cannot support it.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I also wish the bill could be divided, so that the $2 billion can quickly be put to a vote and sent to the provinces to help us fix our problems in health care.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is the motion deemed to have been adopted or is the vote being deferred until Tuesday?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

No other members wishing to speak to this topic, is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among all the parties and I believe if you ask, you would find unanimous consent to allow the debate on mad cow disease, which was held February 4, 2004, to continue, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, up until 2:30 p.m. today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Does the hon. deputy government House leader have the consent of the House to proceed in such a fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will the debate be in the same format as the take note debate from last week where we were in committee of the whole, or will we use the normal procedure?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The government House leader brought this matter in under Standing Order 53(1) which deals with an emergency debate. Therefore, we will not go into committee of the whole.

All the speeches will be 10 minutes long. Time can be shared. There will be no questions or comments.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, should there not be a 10-minute period for questions and comments?