Debates of Oct. 21st, 2010

Opposition Motion—Federal spending power

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will first announce the good news, both for my colleagues in this House and for all those watching on CPAC, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, because everyone is familiar with his legendary eloquence.

I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher who provided the impetus for this motion on opposition day today. I would say that he is the godfather of the motion, but I know we must use sponsor instead of that term in this House, as I recall being dressed down for that in the past. He does excellent work, and so we try to measure up to his standard, to provide the key points that will mean that this motion, on this opposition day, will pass virtually unanimously. The only ones who will perhaps oppose it are the Conservative members from Quebec, because it is very difficult to make them see sense.

First, let us step back and take a brief look at how the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces stood in 1867. It was quite simple. Let us put ourselves in the context of the 19th century. At that time, it was easy, because if something directly affected people and how they organized society, it was under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Examples are civil laws that codified the relationships between people, the organization of society through social programs, health and education, and cultural matters. If something did not directly affect people or the internal organization of society, it could be federalized. Examples are monetary policy, international trade and the general regulation of trade and commerce and industry. In 1867, Quebec was not really industrialized, and that was not something that necessarily affected people.

The people in our ridings, a majority in Quebec, feel that the federal government is remote from their daily lives. In fact, what I have just read is a direct result of that, and people feel very remote from the federal government. What affects them on a daily basis are matters that fall squarely within the jurisdiction of Quebec. But the situation is not the same in the other provinces, because in the other provinces, the government they primarily look to is the federal government.

How can we get the other provinces to understand our strong desire to manage our own areas of jurisdiction as we see fit? We know that there are different ways of doing things that are often extremely effective and efficient.

At one point, I went on a cross-Canada tour. The tour touched indirectly on Canada’s social policies. It would be too long a story to recount, and that is why I chose the term “indirectly”. At the time, the federal government wanted to take control of many of these social policies. In all the Canadian cities I visited, Quebec was always looked to as a model.

Indeed, the motion that gave Quebec the status of nation, which passed in this House, was a step in the right direction. But the words “in a united Canada” were added. Did this mean that “Canada had Quebec in shackles”? Were we supposed to think that the term “a united Canada” was a straitjacket in which Quebec was to be bound?

I think so, and we can see this reflected in the positions of successive governments that have tried to limit Quebec’s initiatives and usurp areas of jurisdiction in order to create a Canada in the image of what we still see occurring today: nation building.

In the past, people talked about the federal government’s spending power in public every day, and about the taxes collected by the federal government, which were too high considering its areas of jurisdiction. Technically, that is where it stopped. However, Quebec’s financial resources were limited because the money was not divided up fairly, especially after Brian Mulroney's Conservative government swept through, leaving a deficit of some $40 billion when it was voted out in 1993. We know what happened after that: after the 1993 election, there were only two Conservatives left in all of Canada.

With an impending Conservative government deficit of almost $54 billion, using the rule of three, there should be only one single Conservative left in office after the next election. People remember, and they can make the same choices again. I do not think that we can expect to see the most generous members of that gang left standing.

I am now going to reread the motion because it says it all. Even the Conservatives should find it easy to understand. They must uphold the principle that they themselves adopted in this House: that Quebec is a nation. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, as long called for by the Bloc Québécois and now called for by the Member for Beauce, end the so-called federal spending power in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, eliminate the federal programs that violate the division of powers, and transfer tax points to the provinces by: a) eliminating all federal spending in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, unless express authorization is given by Quebec or the province; b) providing a systematic right to opt out with full financial compensation and without condition of all existing and future programs, whether co-funded or not, that intrude into jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces; c) transferring, at the request of Quebec or a province, fiscal room in the form of tax points and/or GST to replace the amounts that the province would otherwise have received under the Canada Health Transfer, federal programs in its areas of jurisdiction and the transfer for social programs and postsecondary education indexed to 1994-1995 levels.

We are even giving the Conservatives the recipe, as we in the Bloc often do, but they will not listen to anything. They would rather stick to their own recipe and botch it.

Why 1994-95 levels? Because, when the Conservatives left office with a large deficit, the Liberals took office and drastically cut social programs, something that falls under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Why ask for tax points and GST transfers? To have an insurance policy against individuals who run up huge deficits, and then pull the plug. All nations need some stability. We send money to the federal government. Every employer and organization in Quebec could be asked to send their payroll deductions, the tax money, to the Quebec government instead, which would then send the federal government a cheque for those areas that fall within its jurisdiction. But the government has fallen so low and is doing such a poor job that the amount of that cheque would not be very high.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois boasts that it is the only party that defends the interests of Quebec, but in actual fact, that is total nonsense in view of its separatist option. The Bloc takes Quebeckers for fools. The proof is that in the last election in my riding, people decided that after 16 years they had had enough. The difference is already apparent.

The only party that has really responded to Quebeckers is the one led by my boss, Mr. Stephen Harper.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, order. Members may not use the names of other parliamentarians while speaking.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to restoring the fiscal balance and limiting the federal spending power, our government is the one that acted. In contrast to our Liberal colleagues, we did not cut expenditures. We increased the transfer payments.

The question is the following: how can the Bloc deny these realities and the gains our party has made for Quebec, when the Bloc itself supported the historic recognition of the Quebec nation initiated by our party?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is really far too generous to his own party. Politics can be full of surprises, and as it so happens, the member just gave us a fine example of that.

The Bloc Québécois has been here for 20 years and will continue to be as long as Quebec is not a sovereign, independent country. That will happen quite soon—as soon as possible, I hope.

My colleague claimed that his government had solved the fiscal imbalance and controlled the spending power. They controlled it so well that Quebec households have no spending power left. Our companies have little spending power and little ability to invest because the government interferes in areas that do not fall within its jurisdiction and spends enormous amounts of money. As a result, Quebec is unable to take its fate into its own hands.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to try again with the member about the implications to providing health to Quebeckers.

The member will know that with regard to the five pillars of the Canada Health Act those things can only be sustained if the Government of Canada has the tool of funding to make sure that they are enforced, to make sure that health care is universal, comprehensive, accessible, affordable and publicly funded.

The problem we are dealing with is if we did not have that system there would be this migration to private health care which would be available to those who could afford it, those who had the ability to pay for that health care, which means that they could skip the queue. To the extent that there was a growth of private health care, the health expertise would be drawn away from the public system, therefore, weakening the public system and providing care only to those who had the ability to pay.

I wonder if the member really understands that this would potentially be the consequences of doing what is proposed in the motion. It would weaken not only the health system in the rest of Canada, but also it would jeopardize the health of poor Quebeckers.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on what basis can the hon. member presume bad faith on the part of Quebec? We are committed to health care. There is a debate all over Canada about the private sector and the public sector. Most people in Quebec go to the public sector.

Why would Quebec be unable to comply with the five principles? Someone spoke a little while ago about a person from another province who came to Quebec and needed care. If we took control of the health care system and the transfer payments for health became a transfer of tax points or GST points, why could administrative arrangements not be made so that it is possible to share services of this kind and not pay for them before they are provided?

I am disappointed that the hon. member presumes bad faith on the part of Quebec when the opposite is actually the case. Whenever Quebec votes for something or agrees with something in the House, it is for the good of Quebec. When it is for the good of Quebec, it is almost always for the good of Canadians as well.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois today, which was read so brilliantly by my colleague from Sherbrooke. This motion was drafted by our colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher and by our House leader, the member for Joliette. It is clear. I will come back to it, but first, I would like to give a bit of an overview.

I have already spoken about how there are the young parties in the House, including the Bloc Québécois—which turned 20 this year—and the NDP—which is still quite young, but older than the Bloc Québécois. And then there are the older parties, which have been around since Confederation—the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. They are getting up there in years, and they have not evolved at all. That is the sad reality.

But Canada, Quebec and the provinces have evolved, and new situations have developed. To give you a better idea, I will read out the figures I just received for the Canadian provinces, because we are lucky enough to have the Internet, even here in the House. In 2010, the population estimates by province were the following: Newfoundland and Labrador: about 509,000; Prince Edward Island: around 142,000; Nova Scotia: 932,000; New Brunswick: 749,000; Quebec: 7,828,000; Ontario: 13,064,000; Manitoba: 1,219,000; Saskatchewan: 1,095,000; Alberta: 3,720,000; British Columbia: 4,531,000; Yukon: 34,000; Northwest Territories: 42,000; and Nunavut: 33,000.

Six Canadian provinces have populations smaller than the former City of Montreal, before amalgamation. That does not include the three territories, which have veto rights in the Canadian federation. I am not saying that they do not deserve them. They also have the right to be heard. Furthermore, they will probably ask to be given provincial status, and the rest of Canada will probably give it to them, especially since Quebec has not ratified the repatriation of the Constitution. So this is a possibility. The Canadian federation is an association of provinces that do not have the same capacities per capita. But there are territories that go with these people. New Brunswick, which has 749,000 people, is a rather vast province that has needs, as we have seen.

Quebec, through Hydro-Québec, wanted to buy their hydroelectricity service. It was practically a national crisis even though it was a small expense for Hydro-Québec. It was a big deal in the Maritimes. The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador felt it was the end of the Canadian Constitution. The transaction did not go through but, still, the province of Quebec must evolve with its own values, which often differ from those defended by the rest of Canada.

Often, the resolutions unanimously adopted in Quebec's National Assembly are not supported by members of the Conservative, Liberal or NDP parties from Quebec because their visions differ from those of Quebec. But this is 2010. As I explained, six provinces and the three territories have fewer inhabitants than the former City of Montreal, and four provinces and the three territories have fewer inhabitants than the City of Laval. I understand that these people need help from the federal government in order to create health systems simply because of the size of their provinces. The problem is that health is under provincial jurisdiction. This is no longer the federation envisioned by the founding fathers.

The federal government has played that game. It decided to invest because it wanted equality in the services provided.

Often, the services were developed by Quebec. That is the reality. The best example is Hydro-Québec, which was developed without any funding from the federal government but with fees paid by Quebeckers who pay their electricity bills every month and work very hard to do so. That is the reality. Hydro-Québec developed a grid that is among the most powerful in the world, which means that tomorrow morning it could buy neighbouring companies with pocket change. That is the reality.

Once again, we are imprisoned in a federation that does not want Quebec to grow too big, that does not want Quebec to develop equality and justice for its citizens. A daycare system was created in Quebec and it is being tried in other provinces. All of the equality services that were created by the Government of Quebec have been, for the most part, emulated by the other Canadian provinces. However, that has often been done with a cheque issued by Ottawa, without Quebec receiving any compensation for the money it has invested.

As we know, health and child care are matters of provincial jurisdiction. Yet the Liberals are trying to create Canada-wide programs paid for by the federal government, even though Quebec has already developed its own network and invested its own money. Quebec wants either tax points or financial compensation. This has not happened. There have been a few piecemeal agreements regarding labour legislation and assistance for workers, but as for the rest, Canada-wide centralizing systems have been created to the detriment of Quebec. Year after year, decade after decade, we have had quite enough. That is the reality. Quebeckers are becoming increasingly fed up.

I will not read all of the texts, because I know my colleagues have had the opportunity to do so today. Whether we are talking about Jean Lesage, René Lévesque, Robert Bourassa, Lucien Bouchard or Benoît Pelletier, all Quebec leaders—whether federalist or sovereignist—have asked the federal government to give up its spending power in provincial jurisdictions. The federal government needs to withdraw and give us the money, in the form of either tax points or financial compensation, so we may look after our own affairs.

The Canadian Constitution grants us these rights, although the federal government—Conservative and Liberal alike—prefers to fall back on the Supreme Court, which allows the federal spending power. Quebec has gone beyond that. For decades now, we have not wanted the federal government to take care of our affairs because we are perfectly capable of taking care of them ourselves. The only thing we want is to stop paying 53% of our taxes to Ottawa. That is the reality. The federal corporate tax rate is higher than Quebec's. Some 53% of our tax money goes to Ottawa. We do not get that money back. That is the reality.

All Quebeckers are asking for is that when we create our own service, the federal government must withdraw and give us the money in the form of either tax points or the right to opt out with full compensation. That is what the Bloc Québécois motion calls for. The motion is straightforward.

The hon. member for Beauce has decided to get on board the ship that the Bloc Québécois has been sailing since it arrived in the House in 1993. Good for him. The fact remains that the Canadian federation cannot go on like this. We cannot have a Conservative Party that ignores the issues and that, during an election campaign, promises not to interfere in provincial jurisdiction with its federal spending power, then does exactly the opposite when it gets into power because it is politically expedient. Once again, the Liberals are proposing Canada-wide programs. I understand that. There are six provinces with fewer inhabitants than the old city of Montreal, and four, plus the three territories, with fewer than the city of Laval. I understand that the Liberals want to help them, but this must not be done at the expense of Quebeckers, who have paid for their own services, such as Hydro-Québec. The federal government even wants to pay for Newfoundland's underwater transmission line so that it can sell electricity to foreign buyers when Quebec paid for the same thing out of its own pocket. This House has to move into the 21st century. The old parties have to stop living as if they were in 1867.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague on the issue of health care.

Quebec has innovated in a number of areas in primary health care. It has been allowed to do that over the years, which is fantastic.

Seventeen of the top 20 health care systems in the world are European, and all of them use different models to fund hospitals. They do not use block funding but rather fund hospitals based on patient care and services rendered. They also use a mix of public-private partnerships, and they utilize innovative tools in terms of prevention, using Head Start early learning programs.

Given the wall that we are careening toward with an aging population and a cost that is going up 8% per year and revenue at 3%, does my colleague not think that Europe is a place to look to in terms of innovations to save our public health care system?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for his question, but he is making the same mistake as every Liberal, past and present. Health is under provincial jurisdiction. Each of the provinces must decide what their health care system means to them. Are we at a crossroads? I think we are, but Quebec will decide what kind of health network it wants to have.

The problem is that there are more than 10,000 civil servants in Ottawa, not one of whom runs a hospital or a CLSC, or provides services to the public. Not one. They just work on programs and statistics. It is time to end federal spending in health and give each of the provinces what they need to develop their own network, as the Constitution of Canada requires.

If my Liberal colleague intends to amend the Constitution in order to centralize health care in Ottawa, let him say so and base his next election campaign on that. The Liberals would like to but they do not dare put it in their election platform. They want to centralize health care in Ottawa. All they have to do is put it in their platform and tell the provinces that, in future, they, not the provinces, will look after it. That is a political choice they would not dare make. They have never had the courage to make it.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, during the Bloc opposition day, we are talking about limiting the federal government’s spending power in areas under provincial jurisdiction, and in particular health.

It is somewhat bizarre to see the federal government trying to perform in an area that is not under its jurisdiction. In areas under its own jurisdiction and where it should be performing, we have transport. The federal government should be maintaining its airports and its ports. It is even trying to assign the management of airports in the regions of Quebec to the RCMs and municipalities. Even small ports, particularly the ones that belong to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, are being left to port corporations on their own, with no money and no funding. When it does not work, they form a committee or commission a study.

There is also a federal program on privatization of small craft harbours. While the Liberals were raking in surpluses of $10 to $12 billion a year, port infrastructures were not being maintained and were deteriorating. Today, the federal government would like to divest itself of them, but nobody wants them.

I would like my colleague, who was the transport critic until very recently, to explain this to us. Once again, they should be looking after their own business instead of looking after other people’s.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Manicouagan, who has to live with this situation.

The lower north shore and the north shore include much of the St. Lawrence and part of its estuary. In the early days of Confederation, it was already the most important engine of economic development in Canada. At that time, the federal government wanted the ports because this was the engine of economic development. But as the years passed, it became less glamorous. It was less profitable in political terms because commercial traffic was no longer necessarily by water, and was rather by land or air.

Health networks grew up, and health spending by the provincial governments grew as well. The federal government decided to make some political hay. I recall very clearly, when I came here as a member, the first speech that then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made when he was in Europe. He gave the President of France a piece of advice. He suggested that he do what we did in Canada, leave health entirely to the provinces and then make decisions. For example, for emergency room waiting rooms, he could enact a law and decide to cut waiting time in the ER. He did not manage a single hospital. It made no sense. It is all very well to do that when, in France, it is the central government that manages all the hospitals.

That is the reality. If the Liberals wanted that, they should have told the provinces they were going…

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard many members in the House talk about the health file specifically and the federal government's interference in that area. It is obvious that the options put forward by the other parties are, as my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said, aimed at centralizing all health-related matters in Parliament, at that level of government.

But it is clear to Quebeckers that, under the Constitution, health is the exclusive domain of the Quebec and provincial governments. And regardless of the party in power, the Quebec government has repeatedly expressed that in its statements and demands, as well as its concrete actions.

And it is precisely that aspect of the problem that I want to address this afternoon. I am the health critic for the Bloc Québécois. Throughout my entire political and parliamentary career in the House, I have had the opportunity to pit my ideas against those of my colleagues in other political parties. I have also had the opportunity to see how those same colleagues in other political parties in Canada view health care and its future.

One need only consider what the Standing Committee on Health has done in recent months. It studied the whole issue of human resources in the health sector and would have the federal government tell the provinces how to manage their human resources in the health sector. It even went so far as to give the Quebec and provincial governments advice on health education. Under the Constitution, however, education is another area within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec and provincial governments. Once again, we get the sense that our colleagues in other political parties in Canada feel the need to say that this Parliament should have a role in health. And there are other examples.

I can understand them. Any intervention in the health sector has a direct impact on the population. As I have often said, intervention gives them an opportunity to toot their own horn and say that they are doing good work that is helping people. But, from the Bloc Québécois's point view, it is clear that the federal government should do that only in areas under its own jurisdiction.

We see this in various statements, bills, tax measures and budget measures. The government's initiatives belie the promise the Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the Conservative Party, made during the 2006 election campaign to limit the federal spending power. We have seen no sign that he wants to make good on that promise. What we have seen is that with his government's various policies, he has carried on the Liberal tradition of intruding into areas outside federal jurisdiction.

The measure I want to use as an example is extremely worthwhile. It was in Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, which was passed in the House because the Liberals decided to support the Conservative government. They did not have the backbone to get all their members into the House to vote against the budget implementation bill. If this measure had come from a provincial government, it would have been completely fair, because it was directly related to health. But since it comes from the federal government, which has no constitutional jurisdiction over health, we want to know what it is doing in the bill. What the government is doing is interfering.

It is using federal money for initiatives in areas that are outside federal jurisdiction. I will tell hon. members what was in Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, which was passed. The government allocated $13.5 million to the Rick Hansen Foundation, a not-for-profit organization whose goal is to speed progress toward a cure for spinal cord injuries and improve the quality of life of people with such injuries. This is extremely worthwhile and commendable, and it is what health care is all about. People come to us because they are ill and they need support. It is important that the appropriate government take action and develop strategies and programs to address people's needs. It is not up to the federal government to intrude into these jurisdictions because of its spending power.

There are other examples. Organizations that support patient groups, people with specific illnesses, are all calling on the federal government to establish Canada-wide strategies, national strategies, as the government calls them. In the Bloc Québécois, when we talk about anything national we are talking about Quebec, our nation that we are so proud of. These organizations are calling for standards and guidelines at all levels of government to come up with strategies for the entire country that respect the areas of jurisdiction. As I was saying, health is not a federal government jurisdiction.

There is no shortage of examples to illustrate the intrusions, the encroachments and the constant duplication of the federal government, Liberal and Conservative alike, when it comes to the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces over health care. Sections 92.7 and 92.16 of the Constitution Act, 1867 clearly stipulate that health care and social services fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I am referring to the relevant sections just to prove that this is not a party line or my own idea. From as far back as 1919, Ottawa has been intervening increasingly in these sectors, even forcing Quebec and the provinces to comply with so-called national standards and objectives.

I will list a series of events that have occurred since 1919 to show to what extent the federal government has ignored these two sections of the Constitution by interfering in the health care sector. In 1919, the Department of Health was created; in 1957, the federal Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was passed; in 1966, the Medical Care Act was passed; in 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed; in 2004, the Public Health Agency of Canada was created; and in 2007, another commission was created by the federal government to take up even more space in this jurisdiction belonging exclusively to Quebec and the provinces under the Constitution. I am talking about the Canadian Mental Health Commission.

In view of all this, it is clear that the Government of Canada, Liberal and Conservative alike, has decided over time to take its place in the health care sector even though it has no business there.

Like my Bloc Quebecois colleagues have said throughout the afternoon, if the government really wants the people that it represents to have access to better services, it should simply give to the provinces the means they need to carry out this responsibility. Instead of spending this money freely, and rarely in concert with the provinces, it should give it to them, through tax point transfers. This would give Quebec and the provinces the means to adequately carry out their responsibility, which is to give priority to the health of our fellow citizens. Of course, these concerns can also be ours, but the actions that result from these concerns and that are taken in this Parliament must absolutely respect the fact that health is a jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Another aspect of federal interference in health has to do with research and education. By creating research institutes, whose mandate is to provide better health products and services and to strengthen Canada's health system, the government is once again—because of its tendency to always control more—further encroaching upon areas which, under the Constitution, fall outside federal jurisdiction.

The Bloc Quebecois has often said that investments in research are necessary. However, it is important to point out that, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the federal government is giving itself the power to impose its priorities and views on the health sector. This goes way beyond research as such.

I have said repeatedly in the House that the Bloc Quebecois wants the federal government to substantially increase research budgets. We think this money should be transferred to Quebec, so that it can invest it according to its own criteria, and without any condition.

The whole educational component is often connected to research. Education is not a federal jurisdiction. It comes exclusively under the governments of Quebec and the provinces. Therefore, all the money needed to fund our university sector should be distributed by the governments of Quebec and the provinces. That is their responsibility.

As I mentioned, and as my colleagues have said throughout the afternoon, since I am convinced that all hon. members are aware of the importance of this sector, it is crucial that the money be available and that this government adequately carries out this responsibility by transferring tax points to Quebec and the provinces.

Throughout the history of Quebec, governments have taken a stand and demanded that the federal government stop interfering in the health file and stop dictating to Quebec, by its actions, how it should carry out its responsibilities in the area of health.

Governments of all political persuasions, not just sovereignist governments, took this position for Quebec.

Although I have already spoken about this in the House, I would like to do so again. I would like to speak of the different governments that, over the course of Quebec's history, presented specific demands to the federal government in this regard.

Maurice Duplessis' second government—from August 30, 1944 to September 7, 1959—had the following message:

Quebec considers that the following areas are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces: natural resources, the establishment, maintenance and administration of hospitals, asylums and charitable institutions, education in all areas including university studies, the regulation of professions, including the entrance requirements to the practice of medicine and relations between patient and physician, social security, health and public hygiene, the construction of bridges and roads.

Earlier, I gave examples pertaining to human resources management in health care, education, the way in which funds are allocated to our universities, and hence the actions, programs and research our universities must carry out. I also spoke of public health. The government of Maurice Duplessis told the federal government that it was none of its business, that it should look after its own affairs, and to give us our money, the money sent to the federal government, the money that it does not want to give back in order for us to meet our needs. That is what the government of Maurice Duplessis said at the time.

I will also quote another government, the Union Nationale government of Daniel Johnson Sr., in power from June 16, 1966 to September 26, 1968. I would like to highlight the demands and the message of that government with respect to health care and protecting this jurisdiction which, under the Constitution, remains the jurisdiction of Quebec.

To ensure the equality of the French Canadian nation, Quebec needs greater powers. It wants to make its own decisions in certain areas: 1) development of its human resources (i.e. every aspect of education, social security and health); 2) economic affirmation (i.e. the power to implement economic and financial mechanisms); 3) cultural expression (arts, letters and the French language); 4) the influence of the Quebec community.

Even back then, there was talk about every aspect of health, and not small exceptions here and there.

It also said “the power to implement economic and financial mechanisms”. We just have to look at what the federal government wants to do with its Canada-wide securities commission. It wants to undermine Quebec's power to take its economy in its own hands and therefore centralize everything in Toronto once again. Does that not prove that what Daniel Johnson Sr. was saying is still current?

He was also advocating for cultural expression, in the arts, literature and the French language, and that is what we have been constantly asking the House to do: to transfer those powers to Quebec and the funds that come with those powers because Quebec is a strong and creative nation and we need to be able to invest all our resources in those areas.

I would also like to talk about Robert Bourassa, if I may.

After the Meech Lake accord, Robert Bourassa said that under the Canadian Constitution, social and health care issues indisputably fell within the exclusive power of the provinces.

Robert Bourassa also told the federal government to mind its own business. The Bloc Québécois is asking the same thing today.

I hope that all the hon. members of the House have understood the message and will vote in favour of this motion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know the Canada Health Act has five basic principles: universality, available to all, publicly administered and funded, comprehensive, accessible and portable. As long as a province respects the five principles of the Canada Health Act, those transfers are fine.

Members will know that one of the problems we have had in a number of provinces is that there has been this leakage out of the public system into privately provided health care for those who are prepared to pay for it over and above the taxes they pay. It is a system for the rich.

If there were an opt out in a transfer to compensation, there is a risk. I would suggest the private health care system would flourish in Quebec, that only the rich, those who could afford to pay, would be able to get health care and there would be leakage of health care professionals out of the public system. The best and the brightest would clearly be moving into the private sector where they could get more compensation for their services. This would be the beginning of the end of public health care in Canada and Quebec.

Could the member explain to us what do we do about first nations, which are totally federally funded? What do we do about our shared research? What do we do about providing for pandemics? What do we do to protect available, comprehensive, accessible health care for the poor, for those who could not afford the private health care system that the member was promoting?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Indeed, the federal government is responsible for specific groups under the Constitution. One example is first nations communities. When I hear him say that, I have to wonder why is it that the Standing Committee on Health has had first nations groups appear before it to say that they do not even have clean drinking water. That is a federal responsibility and the government is not even fulfilling it.

After that, the government has the nerve to say that Ottawa must oversee what all of the provinces are doing, even though it cannot even take care of the groups it is responsible for. Once again, Ottawa knows best.

The hon. member is telling us that the Government of Ontario—and the member represents a riding in Ontario—cannot even see the health care problems there. Of course, nothing is perfect we are not trying to suggest otherwise here today. Even if this government were to suddenly stop interfering in health care, all of the problems facing our health care systems would not necessarily go away. However, that does not matter, because when it comes to governments that assume their responsibilities, that know the problems, that really know how it works and know the institutions they are responsible for, those are the governments that will have the resources, because the federal government will have transferred to them the funds owing to them. That money comes from taxpayers who send half of their taxes to Ottawa. They will have the means to ensure the sustainability of health care systems.

Regarding his comments about the possible leakage of capital, I would simply suggest that he go back to his provincial government, the Government of Ontario, and clearly say to it that he does not trust it to properly look after the health care system. That is not what people are telling the Bloc Québécois. People are telling the—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes, our very capable health critic.

I know that my colleague is well aware of the situation. All of the members in this House need to understand that 53% of Quebeckers' tax money goes to Ottawa, keeping in mind that corporate taxes are higher in Ottawa than in Quebec. That is the reality. Is there a way that Quebeckers can do what they want with their money when it comes to health?

It upset me to hear the Liberal member. The Government of Canada, which runs only one hospital in Quebec, the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue veterans' hospital, is currently negotiating to have Quebec run it because it is not capable of doing so. That is the reality. The fact is that none of its 10,000 civil servants can run hospitals. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for his remarks.

His example is certainly relevant because, once again, he has shown that, as he said himself in his speech, Health Canada officials do not administer hospitals, they do not manage waiting lists and they do not treat patients. That is not what they do. The hon. member forArgenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel says that the federal government wants to walk away from the only hospital it is responsible for because it is not up to the task. This is quite logical because, as I told my Liberal colleague who asked the question, that kind of expertise is in the hands of the governments of Quebec and the provinces, as it always has been. They are the ones who really know the needs of the patients. They are the ones who administer hospitals, they are the ones who manage and train staff. As I said, education is in the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. That is why the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel asks how it is that, with the money that Quebeckers give to the federal government, they are not able to get the funds necessary to improve all their systems, specifically through tax points. That is what is important. I am sure that is what all hon. members of this House want. They want money to be managed in the best possible way and tax money from the public to go to important areas. So it should go back to the governments that are the best at properly managing the health care system.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the debate has been very interesting. However, I am curious if the member would care to comment on a quote from the current Prime Minister, which appeared in a National Post article dated January 26, 2001. It said:

Alberta should also argue that each province should raise its own revenue for health care--i.e., replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec has argued for many years. Poorer provinces would continue to rely on Equalization to ensure they have adequate revenues.

It would appear the Prime Minister concurs with the motion of the Bloc Québécois today.

Could the member try to speculate as to why the Prime Minister of Canada feels that Quebec, as well as Alberta, should have the right to effectively sever itself from Canada?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all provinces should have the means necessary to ensure that the people for whom they are responsible have access to the best possible health care.

During the 2006 election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to limit the federal spending power. He did so precisely because it is perfectly normal that, in the areas over which Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction—and I am not just talking about health, all initiatives should be going in the same direction with no overlap and with no programs working at cross-purposes. That is perfectly normal.

The problem, however, is that the Prime Minister made the promise and never acted on it. We simply hope that he will support this motion and that he will follow through on the promise that he made during the election campaign. The Bloc Québécois has always been clear on the matter because it is Quebec's traditional position. As I said, even since the days of Maurice Duplessis, we have been asking the federal government to mind its own business.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

As it is 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division is deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 26, 2010, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.