Pauline Picard

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the role of the federal Department of Health at the outset was to transfer sums of money for certain programs being established at the time, like the EPF which was calculated per capita. But, the government, because it holds the power to spend, decided to reduce its deficit by cutting and freezing transfer payments.

The demand for health care in the provinces has increased and freezing transfer payments has reduced the provinces' ability to manage their health care system. Last year, the decision to extend the freeze meant that billions of dollars were not transferred to Quebec, and these billions of dollars which the Province of Quebec did not receive obliged it to reduce the services offered in hospitals. This year, transfer payments will be cut even more.

That is not the role of the Department of Health. The department is supposed to transfer moneys owed to the provinces. Regardless of how it will come about, the result will be that funding for health care will be reduced and it is the provincial governments who will get the squeeze when the population or the costs of new technology and pharmaceutical products rise. And now, the provinces have to do the dirty work associated with the cuts in transfer payments for health care services. The government should limit itself to transferring the moneys it promised at the very beginning, in 1967, when it imposed standards, when it imposed the principles of the Canada Health Act.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak in this House on Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995.

In its budget, the government announced a series of measures that jeopardize our social programs. Bill C-76 confirms what we feared most and shows the extent of the damage done to Quebec and to the provinces by the federal budget. Cuts in transfers to provinces amount to $7 billion. That is $7 billion of the federal deficit reduction taken off the back of provinces. These new cuts in transfers to provinces come on top of all the unilateral cuts made in the few last years that were so stridently criticized by

the government members who were then sitting in the official opposition.

We must recall that, between 1977 and 1994, the federal government's share of social program financing, that is for health, education and welfare, dropped from 47.6 per cent to 37.8 per cent. Bill C-76 is the confirmation of a sharp drop in federal funds, which is supposed to reach 28.5 per cent within two years, by 1997-98.

After so many years of offloading its responsibilities onto the provinces, the federal government still does not understand that reducing transfers does not solve in any way the fiscal problem that all Canadian governments experience. By imposing dual jurisdictions in fields that are not federal according to the Constitution, the federal government is preventing any real solution to the crisis in Canada's public finances, whether at the federal or the provincial level. In the end, the real losers are the taxpayers we are here to represent.

I said earlier that this budget would be the end of our social programs as we know them. We all know that Quebec and the provinces are facing a breathtaking rise in medicare costs. This raise is mainly due to factors such as an aging population, new and more expensive medical technologies and significant cost increases in pharmaceutical products.

In the last budget, as was the case in previous budgets which froze transfer payments, the government announced substantial cuts in transfers to Quebec and to the other provinces for health care. It does not matter that, under Bill C-76, transfers for this program will be lumped in with other program funding in one transfer, the Canada social transfer. The result will be the same. Less money will be available for health care, and in this way, the government has chipped away at one of the foundations of our health care system.

The Minister of Finance should be honest and open with Quebecers and Canadians. He should admit to them that such cuts in transfer payments will put an end to the health care system as we know it, because that is what is at stake here.

The claim that all of these cuts will have no impact on the health of Quebecers and of Canadians and on the health care system itself is false. I cite as proof the recent statements made by the Prime Minister, when he quietly and furtively introduced the new concept of guaranteed fundamental or basic health care services for Canadians. By even talking about minimum standards, which have not been specified or determined, as being essential, the Prime Minister only draws more attention to a cross-Canada phenomenon: a two-tiered and two-speed health care system.

The two-tiered health care system is gathering steam from the well established tendency in the system which, unless there is a spectacular about-face, will become the norm. On the one hand, a normal or basic service will be covered by health insurance and, on the other, a fully loaded, specialized service will also be available for those who can afford to pay the user fees, to buy private insurance or to finance their health care in another way.

As for the two-speed health care system, it is well entrenched throughout Canada: slow public services for those who cannot afford to pay and fast private services for those who cannot afford to wait but can afford to pay.

No one in this House can deny that our health care system as we knew it has undergone radical changes across Canada. The two-level and two-speed system is no longer a doom-and-gloom scenario but a reality.

In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance solemnly declared, and I quote: "The conditions of the Canada Health Act will be maintained. For this government, those are fundamental".

Bill C-76 reimposes these national standards while, at the same time, cutting the financial resources needed to maintain them. It is pitiful double talk: although we want a Cadillac, we will only make payments for a bicycle.

They are saying that the provinces should find ways to make up the difference and trying to pass this off as an example of flexible federalism. How can the Minister of Finance still think and maintain that Quebec and the provinces will manage to provide the same health services to the population? How can Quebec and the provinces manage to maintain all five conditions of the Canada Health Act imposed by Ottawa, when the Minister of Finance is offloading onto them a deficit in the billions of dollars through cuts in social programs?

The Minister of Finance should have shown some courage and should have been straight with his fellow citizens by telling them: "Unfortunately, because of our past mistakes, in particular at the time of the Chrétien and Lalonde budgets, we can no longer afford to maintain our health care system as we know it today". The Minister of Finance is dodging his responsibilities instead of facing up to them. This government is dodging its responsibilities by transferring its deficit to Quebec and the provinces. This government is misleading the people by hiding the fact that the health care programs are about to sink as a result of the budget.

Bill C-76 takes out two heavy mortgages on the Canadian health care system. On the sole basis of the obscene interest rates resulting from the federal government's inability to bring under control the public finance crisis it has created, the health of our patient, the taxpayer, is not about to get better.

The Martin budget and Bill C-76 implementing it take out a first mortgage on the general state of health of our fellow citizens. All studies conducted here and elsewhere clearly show the cause-and-effect relationship between poverty and the state of health of the population. By making cuts to social housing and unemployment insurance, attacking the unemployed rather than unemployment itself and reducing transfers to the Canada Assistance Plan, the government is launching a full-scale attack against the most disadvantaged in our society. For the

second year in a row, the unemployed and the working poor will be the budget cuts' main victims, while large corporations and financial institutions will be spared for all practical purposes.

The Minister of Finance announces further cuts to the Unemployment Insurance Program but only a temporary tax on the capital of large banking institutions. The minister will beg for a mere $100 million from banking institutions, when the Royal Bank alone made over $1.2 billion in profits last year.

In addition, this government turned a deaf ear to requests from all sides, from the Bloc and the Conseil du patronat alike, to eliminate all business subsidies. Instead, the Minister of Finance chose to make cuts of more than $300 million in social housing rather than going for the remaining $1.5 billion in business subsidies. That is the federal approach.

Large corporations and banks can sleep in peace. The Minister of Finance clearly indicated in his budget that, once again, the unemployed and the disadvantaged will bear the brunt of the financial problems of this inefficient federal system, while at the same time ensuring that wealthy Canadians may continue, until the end of the century, to benefit from the advantages that flow from the establishment of family trusts.

So, this is one way Bill C-76 attacks the health of Canadians. In time, sparing the rich by squeezing more and more money out of the disadvantaged, the government is, in fact, taxing the health of the latter.

In this land of renewed and flexible federalism, the idea is to be rich and healthy not poor and in ill health. The second attack of Bill C-76 on the health area is a direct attack on the provinces' capacity to meet national standards in health care at a time when the federal government is substantially reducing its transfer payments. There is a certain irony in this way of proceeding. The federal government is cutting its transfer payments to Quebec by 27 per cent while at the same time developing national standards like those arising from the Canada Health Act and imposing them upon Quebec.

Quebec is expected to absorb a large portion of Canada's deficit, while the federal government continues to interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction. Quebecers will continue to pay for the duplication imposed by the federal system. There will still be two health departments, two human resources departments, two environment departments, and so on.

As for the health sector, if the federal government can no longer afford to meddle in this field of provincial jurisdiction, it should get out completely and leave it to the provinces, with the appropriate means of financing. This way, the federal government would at least save all the administrative costs related to its programs, which duplicate those of the provinces. One example is the pre-natal program established last year by the health minister, which is identical to the Quebec OLO program. Both the federal government and the provinces would gain and, in the end, the public would get more for the same money.

In Quebec, as in the rest of the country, people now realize that they can no longer get deeper into debt if they do not have the means to pay. Canadians and Quebecers balance their budget by reducing waste and frivolous spending. In every household, people consult each other to avoid buying the same item twice. By taking on two major financial commitments in the health sector, the federal government clearly shows that it still does not realize the seriousness of its financial situation. The only appropriate remedy would be to stop spending, in fields which do not fall under its jurisdiction, just for the sake of satisfying its compulsive need to centralize.

Canadian finances suffer from an acute case of federalism. In order to centralize everything, federal initiatives duplicate and overlap with provincial ones, regardless of the costs, or net results in terms of services to taxpayers. I draw the attention of this House to the eloquent silence of the health minister regarding the negative but foreseeable effects which this bill will have on health care services in Quebec and in Canada. If the minister is at all receptive to what goes on in her department, she must be aware of the serious impact of this bill on our health system.

She must see the flaws of a system which is obviously and quickly leading us to a two-level program. Since the hon. member assumed her functions as Minister of Health, she keeps on repeating that Canada's system is the best in the world and that she cares so much about Canadians' health that she will never sacrifice the five major principles underlying the Canada Health Act.

But the facts do not bear this out. If the minister will not sacrifice, as she claims, these major principles, her colleague, the Minister of Finance, has no scruples about doing it, although not directly, since that would require a good dose of straightforwardness, but indirectly. Principles or not, the Minister of Finance slashes the established programs financing, thus making deep cuts into the health care system.

The minister may claim over and over her attachment to the principles underlying the legislation, but what happens if the necessary financial support is not provided? The principles gradually but surely fall into oblivion. Those are the facts of the matter, and they are becoming more and more obvious to Quebecers. Canadians all over the country would not rush to private clinics the way they are doing if the attachment of the health minister to the principles of the Canada Health Act was

shared by all, and particularly the Minister of Finance, who is showing just the opposite with Bill C-76.

I realize that the Minister of Health cherishes the principles which, at the time, were instrumental in establishing what she invariably refers to as the best health care system in the world. However, I do not think that, cherished though they may be, these principles had any impact on the government's budgetary decisions. It is clear that the minister failed miserably in her attempt to obtain the appropriate financing for our health care system.

Perhaps I may recall for the benefit of hon. members what the Minister of Health had to say about the impact of the cuts and freezes imposed at the time by the Conservative government on transfers to the provinces for health care programs.

The minister said in 1992, and I quote: "Cutting back on the transfers in these areas has not contributed to better management of our health care system". She went on to say: "We have literally forced our deficit on to the provinces and said to the provinces they have a choice: they can either increase their taxes or cut back on their services. What we have seen in many instances is a mix of the two".

Then, still in the same speech, the minister indicated the following: "Cutting back on the transfers in these areas has not contributed to better management of our health care system. They have only contributed to the cutbacks and to the fear that we feel now across the nation as the middle income group, which is the largest group of Canadians, are frightened and afraid of what is going to happen to them in the future. Will there be a health care system for them, will they be able to get the drugs that they need at the prices they can afford to pay when they need them, when they get to be a certain age? There is this feeling that perhaps the federal government is letting go of its responsibilities in this matter".

So what does the Minister of Health have to say now about her government's responsibility for health care, when the bill before the House today offloads $7 billion of the deficit to the provinces by cutting transfer payments? Since she probably knows better than anyone else the serious consequences of these cutbacks, what did she do and what is she doing now to defend her position before the Minister of Finance?

In fact, the Minister of Health has abdicated her responsibilities. When the last budget was brought down, she formally announced there would be a national forum on health, as promised in the red book, to be chaired by none other than the Prime Minister. We were told the health care system would be spared until the conclusions of the vast public forum were known.

While the Minister of Health was unable to hold her forum, which was going to provide all the answers, her colleague, the Minister of Finance, wasted no time and spared no expense on a course of action. The national forum, the discussions and the reforms were all to be scuttled; blind, uniform and unilateral cuts were the answer.

The Minister of Health who must see the same two-tiered two- speed system we see everywhere in Canada, should have the courage to rise in this House and denounce the unilateral decisions of her colleague, the Minister of Finance.

Bill C-76 proves to us that the Minister of Finance is not getting caught up in his colleagues' proposed reforms. In the case of the Axworthy reforms, he did not wait for either the report or the recommendations. The agenda for reform was so vague, there was no time to wait. This was the case also for the national forum on health. At the rate things are going, with the health department dragging its feet and finance charging away at a gallop, there will probably be no more money for transfers by the time the Minister of Finance gets a whiff of a recommendation from the national forum on health.

In the final analysis, this bill is the antithesis of flexible federalism. Nothing in it, in the facts or in the measures announced alters the status quo in the slightest. On the contrary, it confirms the governments imperialist propensity to conduct its business with the provinces by presenting them with a fait accompli. It is true to its vision of ever more centralized federalism.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude on this point. The bill conceals serious consequences for the future. It continues to widen the gap between the rich and the poor in our society and condemns many aspects of our social programs to certain death. The people of Canada have to know these things. More specifically, the people of Quebec have to know them before they make a final decision on the federal system, which is clearly not managing to solve its problems and is even less successful at changing to meet the expectations of Quebecers.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, regarding sexual organ mutilation, we note that it is not mentioned that this practice is criminal. Why does this practice still exist? As was noted earlier today, a physician had to perform surgery on young women. How is this still possible? He had to do nine operations. What can we do to stop that? The individuals who performed these barbarous acts on those young women are still running free. This practice is being performed in many places.

When people arrive in Canada, they do not know it is illegal in our country. They should be told, and the fact should be public knowledge. Steps must be taken to prevent that practice. This is happening here in Canada. In 1995, it is unbelievable that we still hear about those practices. In Toronto, a physician told me that he gets calls regularly from women who ask him to perform these operations on the sexual organs of their children. The Criminal Code must either be strengthened or other measures must be enacted because this situation is really alarming.

As far as-

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion tabled by the hon. member for Québec, which deals with the economic equality of women. In spite of all the attention generated by the status of women in Canada, and by a number of legislative measures and policies designed to correct the inequalities of which they are victims, the situation of women remains very different from that of men, and there is still a lot to be done before they can enjoy the same benefits as their male counterparts.

As the member for Drummond, I first want to express my friendship and my support to women in my riding, particularly those who work in organizations dedicated to improving the situation of women in our riding. As the opposition critic on health issues, this is also an opportunity to stress the urgency of establishing a health care system for women.

The moneys allocated to research on women's health issues remain largely inadequate. There are insufficiencies in various sectors such as breast cancer research, gynaecology and obstetrics, chronic and degenerative diseases, mental health, violence, occupational diseases, specific needs of immigrant women of ethnic origin and native women, teenagers, elderly women, and so on.

At the beginning of her mandate, 15 months ago, the Minister of Health told us how she was going to promote women's health. She explained the programs that her government was going to implement, so as to correct the inequalities which affect women in the health care system. The reality, however, is completely different.

Since the Liberals took office, the funds allocated to health care keep diminishing. This government maintained the freeze on transfer payments to the provinces, thus creating a shortfall for provincial health care systems, including Quebec's. The government goes even farther in its last budget by cutting $70 million in the health department's budget, which is a 3.8 per cent reduction. But nothing is done to correct the imbalance between men and women.

Let me tell you about breast cancer. Canada has the world's highest rate of breast cancer.

Finally, the incidence of this terrible disease has constantly increased since the 1960s. Each year, 15,000 new cases of breast cancer are diagnosed, and 5,000 women will die of it this year, that is, one every two hours.

In Quebec alone, 1,500 women will die of this terrible disease. In Canada and in Quebec, a woman has one chance out of ten to develop breast cancer.

A national study, which was published last Thursday, shows that 41 per cent of women in Canada and in Quebec consider breast cancer to be the main threat to their lives.

I think it is about time that we decide to overcome this disease. To do this, we must have a breast screening strategy taking into account both genetics and environmental factors.

This is exactly what emerged from the final report tabled last fall by the national forum on breast cancer in which the health minister took part. This report recommended that national practice directives be adopted immediately to enlighten doctors and promote research and job training. So far, nothing has been undertaken by the government in office.

There is also cardiovascular diseases, which are the main cause of death among women. Indeed, 40 per cent of women will die of cardiac arrest or of cardiovascular complications. Despite these alarming figures, the last budget resulted in cuts to the Tobacco Demand Reduction Strategy.

Resources allotted to this program will decrease from $185 million to $81 million. At the very least, this represents a $104 million reduction, even though the number of smokers continues to rise, especially among women. We know that smoking increases the risks of cardiovascular complications. However, members will remember that tobacco control once was the health minister's favourite theme.

There were reports recently, and again today, in the media about the terrible problem relating to genital mutilation which is wreaking havoc in several countries around the world and is even practised here, in our society. The government is not addressing this crucial issue and we are wondering what it is waiting for.

Quebec has already showed leadership by announcing that it will criminalize this action and sue everyone guilty of genital mutilation. The federal government refuses to clearly add genital mutilation in the Criminal Code, despite the repeated requests made by the official opposition and the government of Quebec and the fact that several European countries and states in the U.S. have already taken such measures.

When can we expect a truly good health system for women? I still remember when birth control was not well known and was hard to get. I remember when women's diseases were considered a normal part of women's lives and their imaginary disorders. I remember when knives were used way too often. We only have to think about all the unnecessary hysterectomies that were performed.

Of course you will tell me that times have changed, that today's policies stress the importance of addressing social and economic problems recognized as being directly related to health. But how are words translated into action? Far from improving, the status of women is even deteriorating.

For years, women's health centres in Quebec have been repeating that the social and economic conditions of women, poverty, the double workload, violence and discrimination are all problems that a pill will not solve.

The solution for women is to eliminate poverty because there is a direct link between poverty and health. Statistics have clearly shown that low income people are sick more often than others.

In this year of tolerance, the International Women's Day that we celebrated last week compels us to have greater respect for ourselves and for others. Women have demonstrated throughout history that they have this extraordinary capacity to obtain a consensus. Our modern societies, whose only values now seem to be those generated by the globalization of economic and cultural markets, need more than ever the involvement of women as mediators.

In the name of profitability, our societies exclude more and more people and fuel the rise of several forms of fundamentalism. Because they are the very ones with the sensitivity and the ability to do it, women will have to assert themselves to lead a successful battle against poverty and radicalization.

I will close my remarks by addressing the women of Quebec, to whom I want to deliver this message. In a few months, we will have a crucial decision to make, a decision that will have a lasting impact on our future. My wish would be to see the women of Quebec taking part actively in this historic moment because no country can be built without the voice, the will and the consent of women. And the new society that we see rising on the horizon must include the women of Quebec.

[Blood Supply System, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister claim she is doing a good job, when 15 months after she was appointed, we are still finding irregularities in Canada's blood system of such proportions that they justified suspending the director of the Quebec City centre?

[Blood Supply System, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health.

Since she was appointed, the minister has answered all our questions about the blood system in Canada by saying we have the best system in the world. However, the facts keep challenging the minister's position on the actual quality of the system.

How can the minister claim we have the best blood supply system in the world when, in an unprecedented move, the Red Cross suspended the director of the Quebec City centre after it failed a Health Canada inspection?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to comment on the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance last Monday. Beyond the rhetoric and eloquent speeches, a cold hard look at this budget uncovers the extent and consequences of the federal system's inability to reform and to respond adequately to the aspirations of Quebecers and of Canadians.

Author Jean-François Lisée recently published two works whose titles are evocative of the con job the government has just pulled, the havoc it has wrought, and they are in the back of my mind as I analyse the unseen side of the finance minister's budget, the hidden aspects of its condescending rhetoric which does not tell us the truth about what is really at stake.

First of all, this budget misleads Canadians when it purports to be hard on everyone. This is not the case. It attacks the neediest members of our society, who will bear the brunt of the major cuts, and leaves undisturbed the large corporations and banks. Large corporations will still be able to escape the tax man, and banks will be taxed very minimally, compared to their astronomical profits.

Second, this budget misleads Quebec and the provinces, when it claims to be courageously attacking the federal deficit, when in fact it is offloading the greater part of that deficit onto the backs of the provinces. Seven billion dollars in expenses have been transferred in this manner, but no power went with it.

Third, this budget is destructive of social programs, and in particular health programs. The official speech conceals the truth of the matter, when it implies that the principles underlying the Canada Health Act are not affected and remain unchanged. Some treat when the federal government orders the meal for Quebec and the provinces and leaves them to pay the tab.

Fourth, and this is the most disturbing, this budget flies in the face of the government's claim to be embracing flexible federalism, the latest version of its favourite theme. There is no flexibility in this budget, other than that demonstrated by the Minister of Finance when he sidesteps his responsibilities and dumps them onto the provinces. Everything else remains unchanged. National standards, spending authority, overlapping of departments in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

With this new budget, the government is once again waging an all out war on the least fortunate members of society. For the second year in a row, the unemployed and the small wage earners are bearing the brunt of the cuts, while major corporations and banking institutions go nearly unscathed.

The finance minister announced new cuts to the unemployment insurance program, while he will only temporarily increase capital tax for major banks. He will beg banking institutions for a paltry $100 million, while, in 1995, the Royal Bank alone recorded profits of around $1.2 billion.

Moreover, this government refused to listen to all those, including the Bloc and the Conseil du patronat du Québec, who were asking for the elimination of all business subsidies. The finance minister chose instead to cut $300 million from social housing instead of using the $1.5 billion still earmarked for business subsidies.

Is this the federal approach?

Major corporations and banks can rest easy. The finance minister clearly indicated in his budget that, once again, the unemployed and the poor will be stuck with paying the bill for the inefficiencies of this unworkable federalism; at the same time, he maintains, until the end of the century, the privileges enjoyed only by the rich through family trusts.

The budget is very clear: within the next two years, the federal government will deprive the provinces of 7 billion dollars worth of transfer payments for health care, post-secondary education and the Canada Assistance Plan for which provinces will have to pay out of their own pocket. This is what we call offloading your deficit onto the provinces. Indeed, the federal government should put its financial house in order, but not at the provinces' expense.

Quebec is being loaded down with a big chunk of Canada's deficit, while, for its part, the federal government keeps interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions. Quebecers will keep on paying the cost of all the duplication inherent to the federal system. We will still have two health departments, two human resources development departments, and two environment departments, to name only a few.

This is the new Canada promised by this bad budget. This so-called decentralizing budget is, in fact, nothing but an empty shell, since the federal government will continue to intervene in areas of jurisdiction belonging to the provinces.

The irony in all this masquerade is that, while cutting by 27.1 per cent the transfers to Quebec, the federal government continues to impose to the provinces the same national standards, in particular those coming under the Canada Health Act.

In 1979, when that bill was proclaimed, the federal government was paying 45 per cent of health and post-secondary education costs. Since transfer payments where frozen in 1992, the federal share has been reduced to 29 per cent. With the new measures contained in this budget, the share of the federal government will be down to a new record low of 15 per cent.

How can the minister have the nerve to want to impose national standards when the federal share of health care has dropped 35 per cent since 1979, despite a substantial increase in health care costs, and will decrease again more than 55 per cent with this new budget?

It seems to me that the federal government will have no choice but to leave to the provinces complete management of the health care system.

I said earlier that this budget will mean the floundering of our social progams as we know them today. We all know that Quebec and the provinces are faced with very steep increases in the costs of health care. This is mainly due to the following factors: aging of our population, new and more expensive medical technologies and a substantial increase in the cost of drugs.

Just like previous budgets when the government froze all transfer payments, in this budget, the government announces massive cuts to transfers to Quebec and the other provinces of funds earmarked for health.

It does not matter if these transfers are combined with others to create one single envelope, the result will be the same: there will be less money for health care and the government will be jeopardizing the fundamental principles of our health care system.

The finance minister should have been honest and open with the Quebec and the Canadian people. He should tell them that these cuts to the provinces mean the end of our health care system as we know it now, because that is the real issue here.

Look, for example, at the recent statements made by the prime minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who contradicted the Minister of Finance who said, and I quote: "The conditions of the Canada Health Act will be maintained. For our government, those are fundamental."

How can the Minister of Finance still imagine and argue that Quebec and the other provinces will be able to continue to deliver the same quality of health care services to the people? How can Quebec and the other provinces implement the five principles of the Canada Health Act imposed by Ottawa when the Minister of Finance passes on to them billions of dollars of deficit by means of cuts to the social programs?

The Minister of Finance should have shown courage and tell upfront to his fellow Canadians: "Unfortunately, because of the errors we have made, mainly in the Chrétien and Lalonde budgets, we can no longer afford our health care system as we know it now".

Instead of assuming his responsibilities, the finance minister is trying to get out from under them. The government shuns its responsibilities when it passes its deficit on to Quebec and the other provinces. This government is misleading the Canadian people by not telling them that the health care program is doomed because of this budget.

Let me conclude by saying that this budget is misleading, since it does not mention the cuts that are still to come. It widens the gap between the rich and the poor in our society and puts an end to a good number of features of our social programs.

Canadians must know that. Quebecers in particular must be aware of it before they make a final judgment on the federal regime, which obviously fails to solve its own problems and, even more, to renew itself according to the expectations of Quebecers.

[Social Programs, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the income security minister Jeanne Blackburn yesterday denounced in no uncertain terms the federal government's withdrawal of funding for provincial welfare, education and health programs. In spite of the $7 billion lost over three years due to federal cuts, the government of Quebec will still have to provide assistance to 240,000 children whose parents have turned to welfare as a last resort.

Like a blind executioner with an axe in hand, the federal government is hacking away at social programs without realizing the impact these cuts have on people. With a single stroke of the pen, Ottawa is forcing the Quebec government to make painful choices among social services without so much as suffering the terrible consequences of its decisions.

It is high time for Quebecers to protect themselves from such unilateral cuts. The only solution available to us is to repatriate the taxes we pay to Ottawa and then decide among ourselves how much of the joint assets we shall share.

[Canada Health Act, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since, according to the Prime Minister, the Canada Health Act will not be opened up, how does he explain the statement made by his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?

[Canada Health Act, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that the federal government had no intention of giving up its control levers over the health sector. Meanwhile, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs alluded for the first time to the possibility of reviewing the Canada Health Act.

How does the Prime Minister reconcile the comments made by his minister, who clearly mentioned the possibility of amending the Canada Health Act, with his own statement to the effect that the government intends to keep all its control levers over the health sector?