Paul Crête

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, we have finally made it. We still had not had the opportunity, four months after the introduction of the bill, to examine this issue in detail, but we will now be able to do so thanks to the Bloc amendments included in the first group of motions. How can the bill before us be entitled an Act respecting employment insurance in Canada, when all it provides for really is a lot of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act?

Let me try to explain. During the 1993 fall election, voters told us that they thought employment should be the first priority of the federal government. They wanted seasonal workers to have the opportunity to work during the winter, they wanted workers between 45 and 50 years of age affected by technological change to have access to other jobs thanks to productivity gains, and they wanted female workers to be able to make the most of their potential and skills.

The government took the message the Canadian voters sent it and turned it into what is now improperly called an Act respecting employment insurance in Canada. As we have heard this morning, some members believe that this bill will encourage people to work a bit longer. They started with a bill and said: "We will call it employment insurance". An employment insurance ought to help everyone get some work and help workers who lose their jobs find another one as soon as possible, so that their full potential is used.

Instead, what we have is a bill where workers who lose their jobs get their knuckles rapped, since they are told they will be encouraged to work longer, because if they do not, they will get no unemployment insurance. This is a punitive approach that is out of step with the current employment situation in Canada.

This title was given to the bill in answer to the public's expressed wish to make full use of human potential, but the bill is just a smoke screen, since its content has nothing to do with reality. The reality is that this reform bill offers no guarantees in terms of jobs. It also denies the workers the benefit of an income between jobs.

Unemployment insurance was established in 1935. I would like to quote what Prime Minister Bennett said about it in a speech: "A series of measures that are part of a comprehensive plan aimed at reducing the present social and economic inequities and at distributing more equitably the benefits of capitalism between the different groups in our society and the various regions will be submitted to you". This is the basis of the UI program as we know it today.

Now, let us look at the content of the employment insurance bill, to see if it still meets that goal. Canadians and Quebecers can be proud of that goal. Experts who appeared before the committee told

us that the UI program is the best program to stabilize the economy during a recession.

The amendments to the UI program being brought in by the government will do exactly the opposite: they will reduce this stabilizing effect and it will be a step backward that will eventually lead us to a situation similar to that of the Depression of the 1930s. The UI program was established at that time to help us overcome the crisis and to soften the effects of recessions. I will give some examples of the adverse effects of this bill.

The first thing that is not good for job creation is the lowering of maximum insurable earnings. We are encouraging businesses, big corporations in particular, by giving them a present, to hire people who can earn more than $39,000, who can do lots of overtime, because above $39,000 businesses will not pay premiums anymore. So given the choice between hiring someone at $39,000 and asking him to do more than $10,000 worth of overtime in one year and hiring a part time worker, what will the company choose? To realize economies of scale, the big corporation will say: "Instead of paying $10,000 to 10 part time employees, we will pay overtime instead, which will make for corresponding savings in terms of unemployment insurance premiums we will not have to pay".

When a gouvernment suggests such measures in a bill, it cannot call it employment insurance. In fact, it is an anti-employment bill. We cannot give such a title to a bill. At least, the government should have had the decency to consider it as a series of amendments to the Unemployment insurance Act, and let us determine whether or not they are in accordance with what the people want.

Another significant element is that everybody will have to pay premiums from now on, starting with the first hour of work. The principle of making everybody insurable can be interesting, but it means that many people, including students, will pay premiums.

We heard representations by restaurant owners associations, people who are responsible for McDonald's franchises and others, throughout Canada, and who cannot be accused of not trying to protect the economy. They told us it would have a major negative impact on student employment. Once again, there is a negative impact on employment. So, we cannot say it is an employment insurance bill.

The other element, maybe the most tragic one, at least in my riding, is the way they are killing regional economies. Next year, in my riding, the changes will take away $10 million from the economies of Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup, Témiscouata, Les Basques and the surrounding area. In Lower St. Lawrence, it will be $20 million.

And you would have me believe that those cuts will create employment? How could that be? How can the government guarantee that these savings will be used to create new jobs? There is no way it can because it is using the UI fund to supplement its budget. It is using it to show the world that Canada's deficit is not that high, but that does nothing for job creation. So, it is not an employment insurance bill but an anti-employment bill, a bill representing a step backwards for all unemployment insurance rules. I for one think it is unacceptable.

Another example of the negative impact of the so-called employment insurance bill, which is just an amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act, is the rule prescribing 910 hours of work for new entrants to the labour force. Just think, previously, a new entrant needed 300 hours of work to be eligible, that is 20 weeks at 15 hours a week. From now on, it will be 910 hours.

What effect will that have on new entrants, on young people entering the labour market? After trying for a year to accumulate 910 hours, young people who just graduated from school in applied ecology, in animal health, in tourism, in recreation or in any other field related to seasonal industries will realize that this 910-hour requirement cannot be met. By imposing such a requirement, the federal government is encouraging those people to do clandestine work and is forcing them onto welfare.

Do you think you are encouraging high school, college or university students to work when you tell them that the job they will get after graduating will lead them straight to welfare? This situation is unacceptable, and it is totally misleading to say that this legislation is about employment insurance.

What should the government have done instead? It should have introduced a true reform and not seize this opportunity to tighten all eligibility requirements for unemployment insurance. For this to be a real employment insurance bill, the government should have included in it the right or the obligation to set a goal for reducing unemployment, just as it did for the reduction of the deficit. It said: "We will bring the deficit down to a certain percentage of the GDP". If the government really wanted to address the problem of unemployment, should it not have included in this bill a goal for reducing unemployment so that all government action could be geared toward this goal? There is no such thing in the bill.

Are there measures in the bill to encourage job-sharing? Are there employment oriented tax incentives? No. All the government has come up with is a technical committee to evaluate the effects of taxation on employment. Before you know it, we will be in the next recession and we will still not have found any solution, although we will have had the opportunity. If the object was to come up with an employment insurance bill, to define and produce rules such

that businesses are encouraged through taxation to keep employees, to train them, to ensure that they will continue to work for them rather than leave.

It should also have included incentives to reduce overtime. But the opposite is true, as I explained with respect to maximum insurable earnings. Here again, there is nothing favouring job creation, in particular by reducing overtime.

Another thing that could have been done was to increase the effectiveness of training. This means doing the right things in the right places. Why can the government not understand that people throughout Quebec are saying that the waste in this sector is outrageous, that the fact that both governments are operating in the same sector is unacceptable?

Madam Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time is up. I will conclude in one minute by saying that this bill is not an employment insurance bill, but a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, unfortunately for the worse, as the basic criteria are no longer even met. The result is that unemployment insurance is becoming a luxury in our society.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on this International Day of the Worker, the federal government is adding insult to injury by amending the Unemployment Insurance Act without a true debate.

By going ahead with its reform, which seeks to make the poor pay for part of the deficit, the federal government is breaking a long Liberal tradition.

Liberal MPs in Fredericton, Shediac, Halifax, St. John's, Charlottetown and Bonaventure, who were elected to govern differently from the Conservatives, are being asked by their constituents to challenge their government. Canadians expect their MPs to oppose this unfair reform.

They too, like the official opposition, must demand that the minister go back to the drawing board and proposes a new reform that will be fair to workers and regions of this country.

[Canada Post Corporation, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on April 13, 1996, the public forum held in Quebec City on the theme "The postal service of today and tomorrow", concluded that there was a need for a postal service of equal quality for all citizens.

The government will have to make the moratorium on the closing of post offices a permanent one, and it will have to recognize that the management of Canada Post Corporation has a real impact on rural development.

The government will soon receive the recommendations of the Radwanski committee on the mandate of Canada Post Corporation. The Bloc Quebecois reminds the Liberal government that 91 per cent of Canadians want a universal service at a universal cost.

When the government will propose a revised mandate for Canada Post Corporation, it will be judged based on how it complied with the clearly expressed will of Canadians and Quebecers.

[Manpower Training, April 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, where manpower is concerned, the time for talking is over. We have been hearing for five years now that the governments are going to talk together about it, yet every time there is a meeting, you do not attend. Do something.

Does the minister confirm that what Louise Harel, the minister, says is true: by his involvement in manpower training, he is perpetuating overlap, creating five new programs which duplicate provincial programs already in place, in Quebec in particular?

[Manpower Training, April 24th, 1996]

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

Yesterday Louise Harel, Quebec's minister of employment and solidarity, was quoted as saying the following: "While Quebec is

focussing considerable efforts on getting employment back on its feet, in partnership with all those involved within the province, Ottawa is headed in the opposite direction, without any co-operation with the Quebec authorities".

While everyone in Quebec is pooling forces in an attempt to solve the unemployment problem, how can the Minister of Human Resources Development justify the federal government's unilateral action, which creates divisions?

[Department Of Health Act, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on first looking at the bill to establish the Department of Health, one might think that it was a housekeeping bill, that it was quite ordinary, since there was at one time a department that looked after social affairs, welfare and such things. One might also tell oneself that the federal government had already played a role in this field and that this was probably just an update.

But it is also an opportunity to look at what the federal government has to do and what its responsibility is in the health sector. For this, we must look back at the origins of our health system. In the past, because of its spending power, the federal government contributed to the development of programs that, while they must be recognized, often parallelled those run by the provincial governments.

Today, these prosperous times are pretty much over and we are facing a completely different situation. The federal government is reducing its spending on health by billions of dollars, but insists on maintaining national standards. It is determined that the rules should be the same throughout Canada.

The way the government has found to ensure this is by creating a department, by means of the Canada Health Act, which sets these standards. But it is like anything else: to keep the thing going, you need the corresponding funds and an effective way to put them to use.

I think that the best example of very inappropriate interference by the federal government in this sector is the creation of the National Forum on Health. What is the National Forum on Health? It is a group of specialists appointed by the federal government with a mandate to improve the health of Canadians, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of health services, and formulate related recommendations for the government. It is a forum with a multi-million dollar budget.

The problem is that this forum is looking at a provincial field of jurisdiction, because in Canada the everyday management of health is a provincial responsibility. When there is a problem in a hospital or community health centre or any other kind of health problem, it is the provincial government that is responsible. It is to the province that people must address their questions and inquiries as to why things are not working or their praise when things are working as they should.

The federal government, meanwhile, gives itself the right to meddle in this area by assigning to the forum the very general mandate of improving the health of Canadians and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of health care. Unfortunately, the provinces were not invited to participate in this forum as full-fledged members. How can the federal government assess the quality of Canadians' health without allowing the main players to participate and have their say in this? This forum has a budget of several millions of dollars and, when we see how difficult it is to fund health care across Canada, we cannot help but think that these millions of dollars could have been better spent elsewhere.

I know that if the people in my region had received any of this money, they would have known exactly what to do with it. Given the need to restructure the system, to reduce the number of beds for seniors, to convert hospitals, if money had been available, if the federal government had withdrawn from health care and allowed the provinces, including Quebec, to act in this area without increasing taxes, interesting solutions could surely have been put forward.

Why is the federal government stubbornly meddling in this area even though it does not have the money to do so? One cannot help but wonder if this has anything to do with the significant impact of health care on voters. Of course, a government with the power to spend as it sees fit, a power only limited by its capacity to borrow, may be tempted to meddle in areas likely to improve its chances of re-election, in areas that may improve the government's image but are none of its business.

For instance, the federal government has a strategy for the integration of people with disabilities, while Quebec has the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec. This is an obvious case of duplication since it is impossible to act in an area like this without part of the budget going to administration. Had the money allocated to the strategy for the integration of people with disabilities been transferred to the provinces, all the money could have gone straight to the handicapped, since most of the administrative costs would already have been borne by the existing bureaucracy.

At the same time there is a federal strategy on violence, an anti-drug policy, an AIDS strategy, the children's bureau, an anti-smoking strategy, all areas in which provincial government take similar action and that require dialogue between the two levels

of government, if duplication is to be prevented. Interface committees have to be established, which involves operating expenditures, but these committees do not provide services directly to the public.

This is important, especially since individual citizens are wondering these days why the system costs so much to operate. Are doctors, the nursing staff or those providing services on the front lines in the hospitals overpaid? Or are there not clearly savings to be made at the administrative level?

When the federal government acts in exactly the same areas as the provinces, we must ask ourselves who is responsible for these areas under the Constitution. It is clearly stated that health matters come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. So, under the cover of an innocuous bill, the federal government is once again meddling in the provinces' affairs. In that sense, it is not playing the role it was intended to play, it keeps interfering in an area over which it does not necessarily have jurisdiction and it could even take conflicting action in certain areas.

There is also an element that is more tendentious, in a sense: federal interference in the form of national standards. This leaves the provinces, who are facing budget cuts, with the unpleasant task of making choices, taking into account population dynamics and ageing. They deal directly with clients and have to make choices in terms of direct service, but at present they do not have all the leeway they could have on behalf of those clients, because spending power in this specific area is in the hands of another level of government, which interferes indirectly.

We are also faced with a somewhat absurd situation. In past decades, the federal government invested a lot of money in that sector and a number of programs were created. Now, we no longer have the means to fund these programs. However, the federal government would never say that it is because less money is being given to the provinces.

It invokes the need for national standards to justify telling the provinces that they must somehow find a way to meet these standards. This puts the provinces in situations which can sometimes be absurd, given that they have no money for certain programs, while spending could be reduced in other sectors, but is not.

Imagine a federal government that would only get involved in those areas for which it is responsible. Imagine the latitude that provinces would have from a taxation point of view, to look after their own areas of jurisdiction. The federal government would then simply have to assume its own responsibilities.

In such a situation, federal cuts affecting national defence could be used by the central government to fulfil its responsibilities. However, withdrawing from an area such as the health sector could also be a way to reduce the size of the federal government, which spends about $1 billion in that sector, even though it does not come under its jurisdiction.

Let me stress my point by mentioning again the areas in which the federal government is involved. There is the issue of family violence. As you know, family violence is the result of a whole set of situations. The Government of Quebec, among others, has implemented policies to deal with this issue. However, federal initiatives do not necessarily complement these policies and there is room for improvement in that regard.

The Bloc Quebecois' position on these issues is not necessarily held only by Quebec sovereignists, or like minded proponents of independence.

As an example, I give you Lucienne Robillard, now a federal minister. At the time, she was Quebec's health minister. On September 27, 1994, she told La Presse , and I quote: ``The behaviour of the federal government makes no sense. How can the health system be overhauled without involving the provinces, which are responsible for the delivery of services? It is quite simply unacceptable''.

I think that says it all. These are the words of the minister, who was a minister in a provincial Liberal government, a federalist provincial government, in reference to the national forum on health on September 27, 1994.

In the same vein, Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, a senator, told the Senate on May 31, 1994 that the government was wrong to neglect the role of the provinces. She asked the following questions, and I quote: "Are the provinces not considered major partners? Why were they not invited to participate in the forum? Does the government leader find it appropriate for the government to be acting unilaterally on a matter of provincial responsibility?"

We must remember how it was that the national forum on health came about. The Prime Minister invited the provinces to take part in the creation of this forum. Talk about hard to believe. Here we have a provincial field of responsibility, and the provinces are relegated to a position of listening to what is going on but not allowed to voice their views, to make suggestions for improvement. Perhaps it was feared that the provinces might indeed make some suggestions. Perhaps the provinces ought to have joined forces to state that the best thing would be for the federal government to pull out of this area and to turn the available funds over to the provinces for their own use.

Despite provincial opposition, despite opposition from such people as the senator, despite submissions from everywhere in Canada, the federal government has decided to continue, to go ahead with its project, to create the national forum on health, solely

for the purpose of meeting the campaign promise that had been made.

How effective was the forum? Are there many people who have seen concrete solutions offered by the forum? Are the millions of dollars spent in this sector being used to improve Canadians' health, as the mandate given it by the federal government would have it?

What more needs to be said to make it clear that the federal government is involved in an area it does not necessarily have any business being involved in? In the bill it is indicated that it could not intervene in areas that are already governed by the health authorities, yet these are described elsewhere in the bill as authorities with which it may have dealings.

In the last budget, the government decided to create a research centre in this area, once again an action that appears totally praiseworthy at first. We are told that health research is really very important, will lead to the develop of new drugs, will help people be healthier.

But if we look a bit further, we see that the provinces have the same mandate. There will be overlap in spending at a time when we cannot afford to do that.

When asked where to cut, we answer: "Eliminate overlap". Health is a case in point, a clear case where the federal government should be made to withdraw from this area. Before passing a bill establishing the health department, in its present form, before granting the minister, as in clause 4, extremely wide powers to take action, we must question the real scope of the clause.

Clause 4 deals with the powers, duties and functions of the minister with regard to health, including:

(a) the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social well-being of the people of Canada;

I think that some provincial health ministers must have wondered who was responsible for what when they read this clause.

Paragraph 4(2)(b) says:

(b) the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health and the spreading of diseases;

In this case, the federal government can always invoke the national interest and the federal power related to law and order, and good government to step in to protect the health and safety of the people of Canada.

The concept of good government is an interesting one, but one which is open to abuse. Perhaps this bill should have been better framed, better defined, to state clearly in which fields the federal government is allowed to take action and to limit it to those.

For instance, when we talk about health care for natives, we realize that the Constitution provides the legal basis for action. But when we talk about getting involved in people's health in general, we realize that under the Constitution, this is under provincial jurisdiction, and we question whether it is legitimate to keep on interfering in this area.

As a matter of fact, had it not been for the possibility, in the beginning, in the sixties and seventies, to use the spending power, that is to tax citizens to provide them with services in order to make the federal government more visible, it is unlikely that such interference would have occurred.

After the second world war, the federal government realized that with the power to levy taxes it had increased through income tax, it weilded great political power. So it tried to implement a universal, Canada-wide health system to provide the same services all over the country. However, there are different regions in Canada and, since there are two levels of government, different provinces can make different choices according to what their citizens want.

The power the federal government wields, through national standards, allows it to try to impose the same behaviour to all provincial governments, but this is not necessarily good. If Quebecers and Canadians had wanted that, they would have said so and the Constitution would provide for this area to come under federal jurisdiction, but it is not the case. This is not what is in the Constitution.

For many who are involved with federal programs the reality is always the same. Take, for example, the new horizons program. The orientation of that program has changed from year to year, at the whim of successive governments. There were years where seniors' clubs in various municipalities were able to buy very useful equipment. Suddenly, last year, the program changed direction, but the connection between that change and the needs of the people was not at all clear.

Today, the new horizons program is aimed at specific clients who would be in a difficult situation. I do not know it members see the direct link there is with the local implementation of CLSC policies. Local community service centres have mandates to help seniors, but they do not have the financial resources of such programs as the new horizons program; they see this as federal involvement that, often, goes against their own action. There are fields of activity where the action of the federal government may go directly against the action of the provinces, and it is very difficult to understand exactly what the federal government's objective is, in that regard.

There are other fields of activity. For instance the fight against AIDS and drug enforcement. In the past, there were different approaches according to different governments. The federal government might prefer a more punitive approach. The provincial government might prefer an approach that will correct behaviour patterns. In the case of young offenders, for example, we have seen

provincial governments-the Quebec government, among others-put in place systems such as the Direction de la protection de la jeunesse, and different sectors where crime has been greatly reduced in Quebec. This has a direct link with to the health issue.

If the federal government chooses a totally differing line of action, then it is a disservice to the people, and services are not as efficient as possible.

In conclusion, I think that, in this era of dwindling financial resources that calls for very wise choices, the federal government-instead of creating a department like the Department of Health and meddling in areas of provincial jurisdiction-should consider withdrawing from health care and transferring the money to the provinces so that each of them can provide services that meet the needs of the people.

A province with a widely scattered or a sizeable rural population and one with large urban centres can make very different health choices. It might be unwise to try to impose the same standards on both.

This is also directly linked to the provinces' respective policies regarding development and other matters. Health is not simply a matter of spending money on drugs. It is the result of the actions taken by the various stakeholders in society.

I think that, in the past, the federal government's actions in the area of health, because of the amount of money available, led to the development of some worthwhile programs. Today, however, its attempt to impose very high standards while at the same time reducing the amount transferred to the provinces so they can provide these services puts people before a difficult choice, as the federal government will be assessed on the basis of its programs.

People put pressure on the governments to develop programs against family violence, for instance. Yet, the provinces, which are responsible in this area, cannot afford to take action, because the federal government does not give them the means to do so. Taxpayers are stretched to the limit. In the end, people are in no position to assess the quality of health care. They tend to blame the government providing the services, when the cuts are made by the government that continues to collect the taxes without providing the expected services.

[Department Of Health Act, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the forum on health is to improve the health of Canadians and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of health care. Can the hon. member, who believes the Canada Health Act requires the government to ensure that Canadians across the country enjoy the same quality of health care, tell us if, in light of its systematic withdrawal amounting to millions and billions of dollars, the federal government is not managing an empty shell?

Despite imposing national standards and gradually withdrawing financial support, the government now requires the provinces, which are providing the services, to comply with national standards without giving them the means to act in this area. If the federal government really wanted to carry out its mandate in this regard, should it not stop collecting the taxes allocated to health care and allowing the provinces to act in this area, thus giving them access to more money so they can provide adequate services? Will the health forum help improve in any way the quality of health care provided to the people of Quebec and the other provinces? I doubt it.

[Department Of Health Act, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what my hon. colleague just said. I appreciated the listing of the various mandates of the federal health department but just the same we must wonder what it is doing there. Why is the federal government once again interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction?

Incidentally, I would like to quote two women who can hardly be accused of being sovereignists. Mrs. Robillard is currently a member of the federal cabinet but she was Quebec's health minister in 1994. On September 27, 1994, she was quoted in La Presse as saying: ``The federal government's conduct is appalling. How can they consider changing the health system without asking the provinces, which are responsible for providing the services, to participate? That is just not acceptable.''

The other woman is Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, who, on May 31, 1994, said that the government was wrong in disregarding the role played by the provinces. She added: "Why were the provinces not invited to participate in the forum? Are they not the main players in the area of health? Does the government leader think it is appropriate for the government to act unilaterally in a matter of provincial jurisdiction?", she asked.

I wonder why the federal government keeps on interfering stubbornly in this particular area. This is obviously an area which could pay handsome dividends, come election time. Some areas are more important, more strategic than others and health is one of them. If only the federal government was responsible, as it should, it would recognize from the start that it has no spending power in that area and would therefore not spend money there, but rather let the provinces look after these matters, thus preventing the kind of duplication we are currently experiencing. So, how can the hon. member justify that his government's interference in this area, if not because of purely political motives?

[Department Of Health Act, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think the demonstration was quite clear. I would ask the hon. member for more details about an example of direct concern to her. We are told the government has a strategy to integrate people with handicaps, whereas in Quebec there is the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec, whose head office is in the member's riding, I believe.

Would the federal government not be better advised, rather than putting in additional funds necessitating even more money for administration purposes-there must be administrative costs in a strategy to integrate people with handicaps-not to spend this money on a program that competes to some extent with action taken by the Government of Quebec? Would the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec not benefit significantly more from the federal government's withdrawal and thus provide a better and more complete service to Quebecers with handicaps?

[Department Of Health Act, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague on the clarity of her address. I think that salient point in it is that attempts have been made in recent years to clearly demonstrate the considerable amount of waste and duplication there was between the two levels of government.

Often people ask for concrete examples of such waste. The various strategies in the different programs my colleague has listed, for example to integrate the disabled, the campaigns against family violence, drug use or AIDS, can readily be seen as worthwhile from the political point of view. The reason for federal involvement in these is obvious, particularly because it gets involved through its spending power.

In today's Canada, we cannot necessarily afford such things. The hon. member's presentation has made that abundantly clear. I therefore feel that it would be in the federal government's best interest to think once again about whether it is advisable to get involved in this area, before adopting this bill.

I would like to ask the hon. member where the national forum on health fits into this. I was looking at its mandate just now: "to improve the health of Canadians and the efficiency and effectiveness of health services".

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to find out from my hon. colleague is which of the responsible governments is the one most capable of ensuring efficient and effective health services? Is it the federal level, which does not provide front line services, or is it the provincial level, which does provide such services, which has the responsibility for them, which is always on the firing line? Is it the provincial governments, all of which are being faced with difficult choices at this time?