Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time with my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore.
I intend to talk about health care and agriculture in this budget. I also intend to talk about some things that are not in this budget, the unemployed, the homeless and the poor in Canada and beyond our borders.
The finance minister announced on February 16 that the government will put $11.5 billion into health care. The money is needed urgently for more nurses, for more cancer treatment and for more home care. I am sure we are all grateful for that.
It is also important to know that $11.5 billion spread out over five years will take until the year 2003 before federal spending on health care reaches the level it was just four years ago.
Canadians know that Ottawa and the provinces share health care costs but in 1995 without warning the Liberals began a round of devastating cuts under the CHST, the Canada health and social transfer, that reduced Ottawa's contributions for said transfers by a whopping $21 billion. That is b as in billions, b as in big booboo.
When medicare began in the 1960s, Saskatchewan's gift to Canada, it was the federal government putting up 50 cents and the provinces putting up 50 cents. Now the federal share is down to just 11 cents on the dollar and the budget will bring it only up less than 2 cents to about 12.5 cents.
The cuts have been felt everywhere but nowhere more than in the province of Saskatchewan. Our provincial government was forced to make very tough choices after 1995. It could either pass Ottawa's health care cuts on to its citizens and the district health boards or it could find scarce dollars to replace that money. Saskatchewan chose to replace the money and has increased spending on health care over and above what was cut by the federal government.
Replacing lost federal dollars on health care has meant that other pressing needs could not be met. It would be useful to have had that money to move more quickly on twinning our major highways and improving our roads. That is why the Premier of Saskatchewan, to respond to member for London—Fanshawe, was so pleased that finally the government woke up and was putting some real money back into health care so that he in turn can do some things that desperately need to be done in the province of Saskatchewan.
Canadians are extremely concerned about the future of our health care system, notwithstanding this infusion of money. We in the NDP caucus are committed to repairing existing health care services and increasing the emphasis on health promotions. We are determined to add home care and pharmacare to the health system and ensure that two tier American style health system never comes to this side of the border.
Looking briefly at the agricultural situation, in December after much prodding the agriculture minister promised $900 million in federal funds for an income disaster relief program. Farmers have had to wait almost 80 days for the minister to announce any details. If the devil is in the details there is much devilry in this set of details.
In agriculture, like health care, it is important not to listen simply to the government spin doctors but rather to read the fine print.
In December the minister of agriculture was promising $900 million for a farm disaster relief program, as the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia knows, but now there are clear indications that the minister and his bureaucrats, or someone over there, have fiddled with the program design to ensure that Ottawa will pay far less than it originally promised.
For example, when the program was announced last week the minister acknowledged that the program would not cover negative margins. That means if farmers lost money, as they certainly did in northwest Saskatchewan because of drought last year and in previous years, those losses are simply not covered.
I am receiving calls from farmers who have lost money in the past few years and who fear, having looked at the details, that this program will do absolutely nothing for them. In addition to not covering negative margins, the minister also announced his intention to deduct from his payments any contributions the government has made to the net income stabilization account, NISA, so it can pay farmers less.
The minister will pay out $600 million or less, not the $900 million he promised as recently as last December. As an aside, at $600 million it is no longer a 60:40 program in terms of federal-provincial. It is more like 50:50. The bottom line is that an agricultural manager for a Manitoba-Saskatchewan lending institution believes that under the rejigged rules announced last week so few farmers will qualify that very little of the $1.5 billion will actually ever be paid out.
The provinces are also being forced to pay the 40%, and that is not fair, as the Minister of Natural Resources would know.
He would know that is not what happened in North Dakota. That is not what happened in South Dakota or Minnesota. It was Washington that paid in that case and it should be Ottawa in this case. Small population provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia are footing the bill to help our farmers through a trade war. Our small provinces cannot afford to take on the treasuries of the United States and Europe.
Ottawa used to take responsibility for safety net and disaster programs, but this Liberal government has walked away from its responsibilities. Since 1993 it has slashed spending on agriculture by 60%. The money it announced for the disaster relief program is a two year blip. By the year 2000 it will again be spending less than it did last year. That, in turn, is much less than it spent in 1993.
The minister the other day said that the announcement was a great day for Canadian farmers. It does not explain why farmers are still holding and planning to hold rallies as early as this Saturday in Regina or why provincial governments on the prairies are saying to Ottawa “You administrate this turkey because we do not want any part of it”.
Farmers have played a key role in deficit reduction and the restoration of a balanced budget. It is time for Ottawa to put money back into agriculture. We in this party believe that Canadian farmers need sustainable incomes. Our federal caucus intends to keep the pressure on the agriculture minister so that a solid, sustainable farm income disaster program will be there, not for just one or two years but for the long haul.
There is new money for health care. There is some new money for agriculture disaster relief. However, in both cases we are just beginning to recover from years of devastating cuts. At best we are running to stand still.
My colleagues have talked about unemployment. I will not go into that in any detail except to note that in Saskatchewan only one unemployed person in three is now eligible for employment insurance. If we look back 10 years ago to 1989 we find that two out of every three unemployed persons actually received some benefits. This is a deliberate policy again by the federal Liberal government and it takes some $10 million annually out of the Palliser constituency, which affects small businesses, but more importantly, it affects families who cannot afford some of life's basic necessities. These policies are callous and unacceptable. People matter most. They pay into unemployment insurance and when they lose their jobs EI must be there for them.
In addition, this budget has done absolutely nothing for the homeless in our country and very little for the poor. The United Nations published an in-depth study earlier this year which is not at all flattering to Canada. This is not the one that members opposite use when they stand to say the UN says that Canada is number one in the world. This is the UNESCO study which says that amongst industrialized countries Canada is number ten in the industrialized world when it comes to the human poverty index.
In addressing budget deficits the UN document notes that the Canadian government has not paid attention to adverse effects for the population in general. In other words, the Liberal government has balanced its books on the backs of ordinary families. Those hurt most were those most at risk.
The committee says that homelessness in Canada is an area of grave concern. The report states that it is of grave concern that little or no progress has been made to improve the lot of aboriginal people, especially in the areas of housing, unemployment and safe drinking water.
I will conclude by noting that there is absolutely no new money in this budget for underdeveloped countries. I was particularly disappointed that the finance minister was silent in his budget about any commitment to forgive the debt owed to our government by some of the world's poorest countries.
Thousands of Canadians are involved in the Jubilee 2000 campaign to cancel debts owed to Canada by 50 of the world's poorest countries. Leaders of the Jubilee 2000 campaign met with the finance minister last fall. They felt at that point that he was empathetic, but they and the poorest of the world's poor came away without any crumbs from the finance minister's table.
On this side of the House we hearken back to what J. S. Woodsworth said: “What we wish for ourselves we desire for all”.
