Diane St-Jacques

[Supply, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member speaking about the health care system and nutrition. We know that a good diet is necessary to prevent disease. This is prevention, and I agree that it is important for future generations.

But are there any solutions for those who are sick right now, those who are waiting in emergency rooms, those for whom there are no beds, the sickest members of our society? Does his government have any solutions for existing problems?

This is very serious and if the necessary action is not taken today, we will no longer have a health care system ten years from now. I would like my colleague's comments on this.

[Canadian International Development Agency, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has misunderstood my question. I will therefore repeat it.

I was speaking of a list of companies dealing with CIDA that had been audited and paid even if their files were incomplete.

She provided a list of the companies that had received contracts, without indicating which ones had been paid even if their files were incomplete.

Is the minister afraid that these companies might include the ones that contributed $695,000 to the party in power in 1997 and 1998?

[Canadian International Development Agency, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister for International Cooperation to provide a list of companies dealing with CIDA that had been audited and paid even if their file was incomplete.

She provided a list of all the companies that had received contracts, without indicating which ones had been paid even if their files were incomplete.

Does the Minister have something to hide? Is she afraid that these companies might include the ones that contributed $695,000 to the party in power in 1997 and 1998?

[Canadian International Development Agency, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Paul Lemire, the director of CITEC, was under investigation in 1997 for $1.4 million in tax fraud involving Abattoir A.L. Bellerive.

This same abattoir gave $1,200 to the party in power, $500 of it for the Prime Minister's personal election campaign. Abattoir Bellerive received a CIDA contract worth $117,400.

What were the Minister for International Cooperation's criteria in awarding a contract to this company?

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, yes, it is true there is a part of the motion I do not immediately accept. I do not think we can simply suggest that privatization be rejected without further study.

Often decisions are made without thorough consideration. We say we dismiss this issue because it cannot be done. However, have some studies been done? Have we thoroughly considered the issue? This is often a problem with governments; they implement programs, but never examine their impact. Finally, at the end of the program, they come to the conclusion that it did not work. We have no system to assess its impact during or even before its implementation.

Consequently, I am not willing to dismiss a private system out of hand, because it has not been thoroughly examined. We must examine the issue and, if we realize this is not really the solution, then we can dismiss it. But if we do not thoroughly know the issue, we can say we should simply examine it.

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, yes, I believe that by his statements, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is carrying on the strategy of provocation used during the last 30 years by the government to get its way. It uses provocation tactics against Quebec, it tries to find solutions, but in the end it does not find any, which is detrimental not only to Quebec but to the whole of Canada.

I believe the government should listen to what the needs are. I do not know if it is whether it has difficulty understanding. If businesses did not listen to what the needs of their customers were, they would go bankrupt. We have a government that is not listening to what the people's needs are and that is continuing to manage the country's affairs as it pleases, that is by invading provincial jurisdictions. Ultimately, this leads nowhere.

I hope that after listening to the comments made by all the members the government will finally understand that the situation is critical and that it must take action immediately.

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest for his excellent speech. Like him, I support the motion tabled by the NDP.

I do, however, have some reservations about the second part of that motion, which deals with private hospitals. At this point I cannot totally reject this idea, since I have not yet looked at the pros and cons.

As we know, all Canadians are concerned about the current health care situation in the country, because no one knows when he or she will need such care, and the situation is getting increasingly worrisome.

Our health care system is in terrible shape and it continues to deteriorate quickly, because of this government's complicity. Indeed, let us not forget that the problem began when the government eliminated transfer payments for health, in 1994. In addition to this mess, the government is ignoring the provinces' cry for help. It is as if the government thinks it is the sole keeper of the truth.

In this week's budget, the Minister of Finance boasted about allocating an additional $2.5 billion to the Canada health and social transfer, to help the provinces and territories fund post-secondary education and health care. That is pitiful. The minister is trying to cover a huge open sore with a bandaid. This government has once again refused to return the cash portion of the Canada health and social transfer to the 1993-94 level.

A single payment of unused funds does nothing for the long term stability so vital to our health care system. The funding under the Canada health and social transfer must be returned to the 1993-94 level. Right now there is a shortfall of over $4 billion.

To illustrate the effect of this underfunding I will use Quebec as an example. How will the fine gift from the federal government be used? Of the $2.5 billion offered on a silver platter, Quebec expects to receive one quarter of these transfers, $600 million, which it may get in four annual parts of $150 million. Half of this amount will go to the health care network, while the other half, $75 million, will go to education and income security. I simply want to point out to the government that $75 million does not go a long way in the health care network in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada.

This money represents, according to minister Pauline Marois, three days' worth of activity in the network. This is practically nothing. Quebec's health care budget is worth $13 billion and increases by $500 million annually due to population aging. I am giving the example of Quebec here but in the field of health care the situation is similar across the country.

The Minister of Finance is not making a real commitment to health care. The measures announced are stop gap ones. His $2.5 billion increase does not fix the problems his government has caused. This is why we have to get back to the base figure.

Canada's health care system is deteriorating because of the Chrétien government's unilateral decision to slash cash transfers to the provinces by $17 billion.

What we want from the government is long term enrichment of the CHST cash transfer floor. This, in my view, is the only way to get the health care system back on track.

The Progressive Conservative Party has long been demanding that health care funding be restored to pre-cut levels, which is the core idea behind the NDP motion today.

With our task force on poverty, and during the consultations we held in various Canadian cities last spring and summer, I listened to many Canadians who are living in poverty or who work with people living in poverty. These people are suffering terribly and will suffer even more with an outmoded health system that is unable to respond to real needs. Once again, those who are worst off will likely be the hardest hit.

Poverty is not going to disappear tomorrow, and those who are already disadvantaged have greater health care needs. Their precarious existence means that their diet is poor. They are therefore vulnerable to all sorts of illnesses. And because they are ill, they must take medication. Too often, unfortunately, they cannot afford it. It is a vicious cycle: greater needs and fewer services.

The situation is the same for the homeless, who are often coping with mental health problems. The result of health cuts is that they can no longer remain in institutions and end up on the street. They are unable to look after themselves properly and their conditions therefore worsen.

In my riding there is an organization called La maison arc-en-ciel that helps these people re-enter society. However, as a result of the cuts there is no longer enough money to reach full efficiency. As a result the poor are penalised because of this government's inaction.

As I mentioned earlier, the aging population in Quebec costs an extra $500 million a year and the situation is the same nation wide. The needs of this category of citizens will increase constantly. It is therefore imperative to get more money.

The time has come for this government to help the provinces and the territories. The government must increase health transfer payments substantially and consistently.

The finance minister acknowledged the need to invest more money in the health system. However, his government refuses to increase payments to provinces. It wants to have its say on the issue before increasing its contributions. Once more, this government wants to centralize and control. When will it understand that this is an encroachment and that provinces are opposed to that. What we are witnessing is the emergence of an unhealthy federalism.

A professor at the University of Ottawa, who returned from Belgium yesterday, mentioned that in Brussels 10 patients who had been on a waiting list for quite a while were called in for their surgery. Of the 10, 9 had already died and the only survivor had moved to another country. Is that the kind of health care this government wants for our country? It seems we are heading very rapidly in that direction.

Finally, I reiterate my support for the NDP motion and I urge the government to act immediately. Our health system is sick. Is the government going to wait until the system gets terminally ill? It must act now; it is urgent.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity given me today to address this House and share my comments on the new budget by the Minister of Finance.

I wish to indicate that I will be splitting my time with my colleague for Brandon—Souris.

After hearing the budget being read, and after examining the main thrust, I have reached the conclusion that it smacks of pre-electioneering, and I will explain why.

I believe that the Minister of Finance has missed an excellent opportunity to table a budget that could have been a best-in-career for him. He had sufficient money available to him to ensure that this budget was one that would help Canadians get their heads above water again, able to catch their breath a bit, particularly after the years of austerity we have been through.

This is, of course, a budget that will please a number of people, because there is a little bit for everyone, but it is my sincere belief that it is simply smoke and mirrors, throwing around some big money. But in reality, after scrutinizing the amounts carefully, we are in a position to judge that, given the crying needs of Canadians, only minor reductions are being offered in the short term. The real gains will be felt only after several years. What is more, Canadians will not see the fulfilment of most of the promises made in this budget before the next election.

The tax relief will depend on the government's ability to manage the economy and the money given to it by taxpayers.

That being said, I must give a good mark to the Minister of Finance for fulfilling his promise regarding the Canada child tax benefit, which will increase by $70 per child, including indexation, in July 2000.

In the spring of 1998, I tabled a motion which was supported by this House. That motion asked the Minister of Finance to index the national child benefit, so that inflation would not make children and their parents even poorer. This measure meets my expectations, and I am pleased to see that my efforts bore fruit.

However, there is a fly in the ointment, I would even say two. First, it will take several years to reach the overall amount since, as is the case with the majority of the measures in this budget, the results will become significant only in 2004. Second, the government did not take any measure to prevent the provinces from clawing back these new investments from the poorest in our society.

I have always believed that the best way to help children was to help their parents. They are the ones who are in the best position to look after the most vulnerable members of our society. Therefore, it is important to make sure that parents have more money available to them, because it will benefit their children.

Unfortunately, in the budget, despite the reductions in income tax, which will appear only a few years down the road, low income Canadians will continue to pay tax even if they earn only $8,000 a year, and believe me, there are a number of them in this situation.

An increase of only $100 the first year would bring Canadians only 33 cents worth of relief a week—not much relief for the families.

This affects me closely, because I am one of those who believes that, from an economic standpoint, it is the children that replenish an economy's stock of human capital. Society as a whole has a vested interest in ensuring this human capital has every opportunity to develop so as to expand the level and quality of community life.

If we are going to spread the fulfilment of these promises over a long period, I wonder whether we will manage it. In the meantime, a lot of water will flow under the bridges, and we never know what can happen in the intervening years.

In Canada, right now, if there is one area where the situation is alarming, it is that of health care, and all the provinces are in the same position, that is, a pitiful situation. It is this government that has brought about the current crisis by taking $17 billion away from cash transfers to the provinces. This was the start of the deterioration of health care in Canada.

The budget provides for a $2.5 billion increase for health care and education. This is a derisory and disappointing sum given the urgent and essential needs in this area. I fully agree with most of the provincial governments when they say that this sum is much too small.

In addition, there is no long-term enrichment of the CHST cash transfer floor, which would give the health care system a boost.

I agree with my leader, the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, who said that the measures announced by the Liberal government were piecemeal.

The Progressive Conservative Party has long urged that health care funding be restored to its pre-cut level, and that the cash component of the CHST be restored to the 1993 level. Right now, the CHST falls more than $4 billion short.

A one-time payment from unused funds will do nothing to help the long-term stability so vital to our health care system. The government does not understand, or is simply not listening to the demands of the provinces with respect to health funding.

In conclusion, the Minister of Finance has used the budget to try to keep everyone happy: taxes have been cut a bit but are still too high; there is some additional CHST assistance, but not nearly enough. Even with tax cuts, corporations will still be in fourth place among OECD countries. And there are some significant oversights in this budget: there is almost nothing for the most disadvantaged members of society, the homeless, and social housing.

This is a small budget whose positive effects will not start to be felt for two years. Strangely enough, that is probably when an election will be called.

[Canadian International Development Agency, February 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister explain that 37% of businesses did not file any report to get contributions?

With a consolidated net income of $50 million for 1998-99, the Canada Post Corporation is one of Canada's largest crown corporations.

Could the Minister for International Cooperation explain why it was necessary to make a $785,000 contribution to that corporation?

[Canadian International Development Agency, February 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario Hydro International and Hydro-Québec International both received money from CIDA. Indeed, these two companies received a total of $2.4 million.

My question is for the Minister for International Cooperation. Why did CIDA deem necessary to use taxpayers' money to make contributions to these large corporations?