Pierre Brien

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it must be pointed out that the Canada Health Act exists with its fundamental principles. Nowhere in the agreement do the provinces question that. We could ask ourselves whether the Canada Health Act is properly worded, but this is not the purpose of the debate we are having today.

Nobody has indicated a willingness to go against these fundamental objectives. The premiers, in the first sentence of the press release issued following their meeting in Saskatoon on August 7, confirmed their resolve to maintain and improve the universal health care system for all Canadians. That was the first sentence of the premiers' press release. It seems to me that there should be something in there to satisfy the member.

This being said, it is one thing for the Liberals to rise in this House and say they want to protect the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act. However, this borders on hypocrisy if the provinces are not provided with the means to meet the criteria.

What good does it do if, in theory, you have some strong legislation, but, in practice, you do not provide the means to enforce it. I have absolutely no doubt that all of the opposition parties will agree on this issue and that several government members will share that vision or, at least, will hopefully realize that, while they talk about setting standards, they do not provide the money needed to meet those standards.

The best people to watch over the quality of our health care system are not the hon. members of the Liberal Party, but the citizens who, along with the various provinces, will put pressure on the government and their local representatives who are involved in the health care system. The best watchdogs for our health care system will always be the people and not some opportunistic politicians who do not put their money where their mouth is.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we are debating a Bloc Quebecois motion about two related issues. The motion first calls on the House to condemn the massive cuts made by the federal government in the health care sector, specifically since it took office three years ago.

Second, it calls on the House to recognize and support the consensus achieved by the provinces in Saskatoon this summer on the social union. I will have an opportunity later on to define what is meant by social union, and what this summer's consensus was about.

So, there are two goals. Why do we want to address what is going on in the health sector today? Let us be very objective. The figures speak volumes.

Let us go back to when the Liberal Party came to power in 1993-94—and my figures come from the review published by the Department of Finance—and look at cash transfers to the provinces, that is the money transferred by the federal government to the provinces and on which the health, post-secondary education and welfare systems essentially rely for their funding. Total spending under these three programs, now known as the Canada social transfer, was over $17 billion, $17.9 billion to be specific, when the government came to power. The following year, provincial transfer payments dropped to $16.9 billion.

What are they this year? This year, cash transfers will be $12.5 billion. This is a drop of close to $6 billion. The provinces are receiving a total of $6 billion less than they did four or five years ago when this government took office. That is a big chunk of money, and the effects are serious.

Canada's entire health care system is experiencing great difficulty. It has been weakened, and provincial governments have had to push ahead much more quickly with necessary reforms, with the result that they are now facing problems in the management of the health system.

But there is an underlying cause. The present government made the decision to slash provincial transfer payments, knowing full well that a very large portion of these payments was used to fund health care. For Quebec alone, this means an annual shortage of several hundreds of millions of dollars that were meant to be distributed to each of the province's regions to fund our health care system.

There used to be someone here who would put it very well. I am referring to the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. During the last federal election campaign, he kept reminding people wherever he went that the federal government was primarily responsible for the cuts in the health care sector. That gentleman changed his tune when he moved from the federal to the provincial scene. People will pass judgment on him when the time comes, but the fact remains that he did make those comments at the time.

As far as I know, these views are shared by all the political parties, which are condemning the devastating impact of these cuts on our health care system. The provinces have decided to form a united front against the federal government. Now that this government has achieved its goal of a zero deficit and is enjoying a surplus, it is very tempted to put money back into certain areas deemed to be priorities by the public. Unfortunately, it wants to do it alone, by implementing its own initiatives, merely to increase its political visibility.

It must be realized that the Canada social transfer, through which transfer payments are made, was somewhat annoying to the federal government, because there was no visibility associated with the money being transferred.

What matters to the public is not visibility, but the program's effectiveness which, simply put, means receiving the services for which they are paying. The people who pay taxes to Ottawa want that money to be returned to them. Of course, one may wonder about the need to send money to Ottawa, only to get it back afterwards. It would be better to send it directly to the Quebec government and to get it directly.

We fully realize that the Canadian federal system likes a big, huge bureaucracy. There is a very sizeable health department in Ottawa, in an area of jurisdiction that normally belongs to the provinces. This is why the provinces decided on an agreement in Saskatoon.

What is there is this agreement on social union? Essentially, there are four components The first one, which is in our motion, is as follows: now that the federal government has achieved its zero deficit objective, let it set as its primary priority the re-injection of funds into the health system via the Canada social transfer, which is already in place, using the transfer payment mechanism that is already in place.

There is no need to launch initiatives, new programs, left and right. What we are saying is that the priority is to service what is already in place, a system with which everyone is familiar, and that the provinces could promptly inject this money into the system in order to enhance the reforms they have put in place, and solidify the health system. All the provinces are calling for this. There is unanimous consent.

The second point is telling the federal government: before launching any new initiatives left and right, before launching any new initiatives relating to areas of provincial jurisdiction, make sure there is support from a majority of provinces. The provinces are very polite; they could have told you to stay within your areas of jurisdiction. But they are telling you, if you want to get involved in initiatives that fall under provincial jurisdiction, to ensure a minimum of co-ordination and to have the support of a majority of provinces.

The third point, linked to the second, is that if the provinces want to opt out—that is, to administer these programs themselves, because they already have all the infrastructures in place, because a similar program already exists, because it already addresses these priorities, and all they need to do is inject a bit more money into it—they are saying: give us the right to opt out with full financial compensation, provided we put the money into the same already defined areas.

The last point: the provinces had the great wisdom to add a new component, which is rather a thorn in the side of the federal government, calling for new co-operation mechanisms in order to avoid conflicts, and particularly to settle disputes, so that Ottawa will not be the sole judge of whether or not priority is being given to spending the money in the defined areas.

Obviously, Ottawa will always have its own interpretation of all this. Ottawa will say that the provinces fail to meet the criteria for exercising their right to opt out. A mechanism should therefore be put in place to settle such disputes, and to do so quickly and more objectively than on the sole basis of the federal government's assessment.

There seems to be a great deal of wisdom in this approach that is supported by all the provinces. They are asking the federal government to show some good faith. However, this request was initially given a very cold welcome in Ottawa, starting with the Prime Minister, who kindly advised his provincial colleagues that, if they wanted to become the Prime Minister of Canada and run the country, all they had to do was to get themselves elected Prime Minister of Canada.

In his mind, he is in charge and makes decisions, and if they are not happy, they should run against him in an election. One was actually considering doing just that, so he got rid of him by sending him to Quebec City. Now, he is calling on the rest of them to do the exact opposite he urged the leader of the Conservative Party. That is quite odd. Eventually, his old Liberal guard in this place could even stop supporting him. We shall see.

Second, the Prime minister took a strong stand in denying this request, making people wonder how real his support is for flexible federalism, for a system capable of adapting to the new realities.

What the provinces are asking is that the health system in Canada, in Quebec and all the Canadian provinces, be managed more efficiently, that more money be poured into the system and that each province be allowed to further its reforms.

Can anyone here object to that? One has to wonder about the real intentions of the people across the way. I am convinced however that, today, all parties—at least on this side of the House—will support the key principles.

There may be a few questions here and there on certain points, and the provinces will have the opportunity to explain their position in the process. But you will see that this approach, reinvesting money in our health system and respecting the provinces in what they do—and they do it pretty well with the resources available to them—will find some level of support.

Hopefully a number of people on the government side will wake up and put pressure on the Prime Minister. Hopefully some of them will be a little more modern in their approach to the Canadian system and will adapt to this reality.

This motion is not a votable item, but I hope many members rise in this House today to express their support for the premiers' initiatives and to say that it is high time the federal government reinvested money in the health system, which needs it badly, and recognized the damage it has caused over the last few years. The drastic cuts that were made in the health system were a mistake and they adversely affected the lives of many people both in Quebec and in Canada.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

moved

That this House recognize the very harmful effect of federal cuts to the Canada Social Transfer (CST), particularly on health services in Canada, and that it support the consensus achieved by the provincial Premiers in Saskatoon on a project for social union, with the following main components:

—re-establishment of federal government contributions to health care services by means of the CST for social programs;

—support from a majority of provinces before new federal initiatives are introduced in areas of provincial jurisdiction;

—the right for a province to opt out, with full compensation, of a new or modified Canada-wide federal government social program in areas of provincial jurisdiction when the province offers a program or introduces an initiative in the same field;

—new co-operation mechanisms in order to avoid conflicts or settle them equitably.

[Calgary Declaration, September 28th, 1998]

Nobody knows what it is about. When they find out, I can guarantee you that they will not think much of it. This is a initiative that never got off the ground; nobody talks about it.

People were then asked whether they thought that the Calgary Declaration would solve the problem of national unity. We will now see whether they are as optimistic as our Liberal friends. Only 2% of people thought there was a very strong likelihood that it would solve the problem of national unity; 15% said they thought it was rather likely that it would solve the problem of national unity.

A total of 17% of those polled said that it would perhaps solve the problem and 83% said it would solve nothing. This is very revealing. I could go on. Several questions were asked and the poll results were made public at the time.

There was another question. The members opposite misled us. They kept telling us that Canadians had been consulted, that they would be given an opportunity to express their views, that there were elaborate plans for a cross-country consultation. People were asked whether they had been consulted in any way. “Do you feel like you have been consulted on the Calgary Declaration?” It was a yes or no answer: 4% said yes, 94% said no and 2% did not know. The last two categories add up to a total of 96%.

I must remind members how this consultation process took place. In some instances, it was done at little publicized public meetings. Some of it was done through the Internet. Some of it was done though toll-free lines. It was done in a variety of ways, but every effort was made to keep the consultations secret.

In conclusion, the Calgary Declaration is a constitutional initiative that is going absolutely nowhere. If the government were really serious, it would talk about the fact that, during the summer, the provinces agreed on the social union concept and discussed priorities for the future.

Among other things, they agreed that the federal government should reinvest in our health system as a priority, with a well established mechanism that would require the agreement of a majority of the provinces for an initiative to be put in place. Moreover, if a province has its own program, it should be allowed to opt out. That kind of proposal is much more promising for a government that promotes co-operation.

What is the attitude of this government, starting with the Prime Minister? “If the premiers want to run Canada, they just have to run against me in the next election”. The last one who tried that ended up at the helm of the Liberal Party of Quebec where he is having a lot of problems. That is the tactic they used. It is a message. We have not forgotten and others will not forget either.

Let us tackle serious issues. The government should focus its attention on responding to the provinces' unanimous consensus that it should put more money in our health system, allow them to administer that money, and invest in transfer payments instead of wasting its time on something that will lead nowhere.

People have not heard about it and I presume they do not want to hear about it anyway. This information can be made public, but it will be a total waste of time. However, it will help us find out how much money has been wasted so far on this constitutional circus that is turning out to be a very lucrative industry in Canada.

[Calgary Declaration, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is now my turn to speak to Motion P-22 from the Reform Party, which asks that all documentation—including correspondence, documents, reports and minutes—relating to the Calgary Declaration be made public.

In the speeches, I also heard reference to polls and public opinion analysis. At the time of the Charlottetown accord, the federal government spent millions and millions of dollars analyzing public opinion, and it is no doubt doing the same thing in this case. We can assume that, behind all of this, a lot of money has been spent on assessing the impact on public opinion of this Calgary Declaration.

Incidentally, has anyone in this House recently heard about the Calgary Declaration? That document may be one of Canada's best kept secrets. They keep it in a drawer somewhere. They figure that, at times, they can use it to make Quebeckers believe that some other minor change will eventually take place. That document is so limited in scope that they are uncomfortable talking about it, because there is so little in it.

The hon. member for Simcoe North alluded to public opinion polls. If this is what they are going to lay before the House, then it is nothing new. That information is already available on the Internet site for the Calgary Declaration.

We wanted to look at the issue more thoroughly. We did not have much faith in the kind of Mickey Mouse polls sponsored by the government. Therefore, we had our own poll conducted by Léger & Léger in Quebec, and by Comquest outside the province. Of course, we were quick to release the findings of that poll in the spring, to show how Quebeckers and Canadians were appreciative of the Calgary Declaration.

Since I could not remember all the figures, I brought the results of that poll here with me. The first finding was that no one knew about the Calgary Declaration. I will give the exact figures later, but that was when people were asked if they knew the Calgary Declaration.

Without getting into numbers, I remember a television report here in Ottawa—which is, after all, the national capital and a city where people follow politics rather closely. People on Sparks Street, not far from here, were polled and the results were broadcast on CBC or CTV. People were asked what they knew about the Calgary Declaration. It was lunch time, and there were probably many public servants around, since Sparks Street is so close to Parliament. Out of the seven or eight people interviewed at random, none knew what the Calgary Declaration was, or whether it was related to politics, sports or business. No one knew about it. Yet this was in Ottawa, the national capital, where the Liberals get all excited whenever this issue comes up. However, it generates very little interest on the streets.

I now come to the first question in our poll. People were asked whether they thought Canada had made a new proposal to Quebec since the 1995 referendum. They were asked “Have there been any proposals?”, because the Calgary Declaration was supposed to have been a form of response to the last referendum in Quebec. When all regions of Canada are taken together, 25% of those polled said yes; 56% said no; and 19% said they did not know. One person in four, therefore, thought there had been some sort of offer. No details were provided; one person in four thought that maybe something had been put on the table.

It gets even sadder when the Calgary Declaration is mentioned. People were asked if they had heard of the declaration, but they were not asked if they knew what it was. One person out of three, or 33%, had heard of the Calgary Declaration.

They were then asked if they had a general idea of the content, even if they did not know the details. This will be a big disappointment to those who think the public has any great interest in the declaration: 17% of those polled had heard it was something about the unique nature of Quebec; 6% had heard it was something about provincial equality; and 12% gave other answers. But 70% of people had no idea what it was about.

And now they tell us that a large number of people support the declaration. I heard the parliamentary secretary tell us that people throughout Canada, including Quebec, support the Calgary declaration.

[Social Union, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, nobody is asking us to rescind the five principles of the Canada Health Act.

What we want to know is whether, if he decides to intervene in the health sector, he will allow those provinces that have programs to opt out with compensation for providing effective, quality services to the public? That is what people want to know.

Why is he refusing to agree to the principle of allowing the provinces to opt out with full compensation?

[Social Union, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Ten premiers agreed unanimously in Saskatoon: first of all, that health is a provincial responsibility; second, that, if the federal government intervenes in this sector, the provinces should be allowed to opt out with compensation; and third, that the money spent by a province must be consistent with the federal program.

What does the Prime Minister find unreasonable about this proposal?

[Petitions, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table part of a petition signed by 10,000 people from Abitibi-Témiscamingue and elsewhere in Quebec. This petition came about because of the events at Taschereau on May 4, 1998, in which two people lost their lives.

This petition calls for a review of the criteria for granting parole under certain circumstances.

I will forward the full petition to the Minister of Justice so that she may proceed and give these people satisfaction.

[Abitibi, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that tomorrow is the 100th anniversary of Abitibi's annexation to Quebec.

On June 13, 1898, the area around Abitibi, which had belonged to the Northwest Territories, joined Quebec following 25 years of discussions between the governments of Canada and Quebec.

An organizing committee under the aegis of the Abitibi-Témiscamingue cultural committee is co-ordinating an impressive number of commemorative and other activities, which will be taking place throughout the summer and continue until next winter. In addition, the committee plans to organize a conference in the fall on Abitibi's annexation to Quebec.

I congratulate the Abitibi-Témiscamingue cultural committee on this venture and I would like to point out that the people of Abitibi and my region are proud to belong to Quebec now and for always.

Happy celebrations.

[Millennium Scholarships, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

This morning, the students of Quebec vehemently denounced the millennium scholarship project. They announced a series of actions that will take place to block the project. When the very people who are to benefit from a government program are the ones to speak out against it, unanimously and unequivocally, it is because it is not appropriate.

Does the minister not find it paradoxical that he is determined to put a program in place that the people it is destined for do not want?