Mr. Speaker, we were told that the government's first budget would give new hope to Canadians. This hope which the Liberals promised to restore during the election campaign, was to be primarily generated by a relentless fight against unemployment, a will to reduce the deficit, the elimination of frivolous expenditures and waste, as well as the near certainty that taxpayers would not be put to contribution once again, since they simply could not give any more.
Nice things were said indeed, but when the time came to deliver, last February 22, Canadians were in for a rude awakening. First, the message sent by taxpayers was not heard. The government will take $500 million from seniors and $500
million from workers by taxing life insurance premiums. As for controlling the deficit, you can forget about that. For the first time ever in a federal budget, a government announced that the deficit would be close to a staggering $40 billion.
In that respect, the minister is confirming that he cannot do any better than his predecessors, even though he himself strongly criticized their inability in the past. Government spending is reduced by a mere $400 million, while the Auditor General is proposing useful solutions which would translate into savings of $5 billion.
As for the evil of unemployment, the government is simply using the wrong approach by targeting the unemployed, instead of providing effective solutions to solve the problem. Is that the kind of hope the government promised to restore? I do not think so. I believe that this budget will go down in history as the budget of the broken dreams.
The government also said that the National Forum on Health would ensure an in-depth review of our health system. However, this forum will have to allow for a real dialogue to identify the obstacles facing the provinces, and to develop appropriate solutions, given the need to adequately finance our health system and take into account the prerogatives of the provinces.
More importantly, this national forum must not be used by the government to justify any unilateral change in transfer payments for established programs financing which would go against the interests of the provinces.
If we take a close look at the budget of the Minister of Finance and forget all the rhetorical frills, we soon realize it is just another version of the Tory budgets which the minister himself strongly and openly criticized when he was in the opposition.
The present government was elected on a platform for change and renewal. However, it seems to have a different concept of change. In fact, the Minister of Finance is perpetuating the Tory government's policy by freezing the federal per capita contributions until 1994-95.
In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance said there would be a National Forum on Health, specifying that "no further changes in respect to EPF health transfers are contained in this budget, in order to set the stage for that discussion. Our commitment to maintain the principles of the Canada Health Act remains firm and unaltered". And yet, reality is brutal for Quebec and for the other provinces.
No further changes, indeed. The minister maintains the cuts introduced by the Tories and says that for 1995-96, established programs financing will be indexed to the GNP growth rate, minus 3 per cent. The federal government has again acted unilaterally by refusing to honour its commitments and transferring its cash flow problems to the provinces. The question arises whether the government will approach the National Forum on Health with the same good intentions and the same tendency to make unilateral decisions.
The Bloc Quebecois has stated repeatedly that the freeze on transfer payments will have a major impact on the tax burden of the provinces. By perpetuating this policy which was initiated by the Tories, the Minister of Finance is putting the provinces in the unenviable position of having to deal with the increasing cost of health care on their own.
The Deputy Prime Minister was also critical of the freeze on transfer payments when she was in the opposition. She said the precarious state of federal funding was about to provoke a crisis in the health care sector in this country. Why did the Minister of Finance choose to ignore this very sensible comment? The government keeps on unloading a portion of its deficit thinking it will get away with it, instead of addressing the real sources of the problem and being less stubborn in its desire to maintain overlappings and duplications.
Two years ago today, on March 9, 1992, in an eloquent speech during debate on Bill C-60, Mrs. Diane Marleau, now the Minister of Health, denounced the adverse effects of reductions and freezes perpetuated by the Conservative government in provincial transfers regarding health programs. She noted at the time, and I quote: "Transfer reductions in that area did not contribute to a better management of our health system". Also, the minister aptly noted the following: "We literally shifted the deficit burden to the provinces, telling them they had a choice between raising taxes and reducing services. In many cases, they did both".
This speech, which made a good case, was not given 20 years or 10 years ago, but on March 9, 1992, two years ago today. What happened during those two years to cause these sound perceptions to be so dramatically reversed? There was indeed an election. And the people who were rightly denouncing the always well hidden cuts in EPF transfers are now in office and making the decisions.
Now I understand why the budget speech only included five lines on the health issue. It is because the Liberals were shamefully hiding the same restrictive policies as the Conservatives, sweeping under the carpet our valuable principles and thereby contradicting the very foundations of the election discourse contained in the famous red book with which this government got elected.
Trickery has its price: the mistrust and loss of confidence of our fellow citizens towards political institutions and those in government. To illustrate this lack of trust, let me quote a last time from the speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Health on March 9, 1992: "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". This quote is as revealing as it is current.
So, the federal government's underfunding of transfer payments to the provinces on health care has serious consequences, in the end, for users, something that the author of the budget tabled on February 22 simply forgot.
Let us take, for example, the case of Sainte-Croix Hospital in my riding, whose budget shortfall is about $10 million a year. Our community has seen the rise of a widespread support movement to ensure the survival of this hospital serving a population of 90,000. It is not in a developing country that we are talking about saving a hospital, it is in Quebec, in the Canadian health care system that we like to describe as one of the best in the world. Yes, trickery has its price: the mistrust of our fellow citizens when they can no longer receive the services that were promised to them and that they are entitled to under the law.
The budget announces the creation of a centre of excellence for women's health. What about this centre and how much will be allocated to it, when the Medical Research Council's budget has been slashed by $10.8 million, cut from the networks of centres of excellence program. As for the commitments regarding a prenatal nutrition program, is it new money or will the funds come from terminating secondary programs-$31.2 million-or exceptional assistance programs-$30.2 million? The figures are misleading and suggest that programs were eliminated to make room for those promised by the government during the election campaign.
The drastic cuts in the Unemployment Insurance Program will necessarily result in a certain deterioration of the socio-economic living conditions of UI recipients and their health will be affected.
The most unfortunate aspect of this policy and these cuts is that they affect mainly the less fortunate segment of our society. How can an individual with an annual income of $25,000 and two dependent children support his or her family if the benefit rate is reduced to only 55 per cent of insurable earnings? How will the health of the less fortunate be affected by this measure? Did the government assess the risks and costs of such measures which will have an impact on provincial health budgets?
This reduction will make it difficult for the poor to afford decent food, clothing and housing as well as heat. It will result in poorer health and an increase in health care costs. If the government hopes to reduce its expenditures by jeopardizing the existence of the less fortunate, it is dead wrong.
