I stand corrected. I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-76 regarding the implementation of certain provisions of the budget tabled last February. The areas I want to speak to primarily deal with the motions we put forward concerning provincial transfer payments, the health act, social transfers and transfers in support of post-secondary education. They are contained in Motions Nos. 28, 31, 33, 35, 46, 49 to 55 and 57.
The motions are broken down into basically three categories. It is fair to begin by talking about the government's ability to continue to fund programs in the way it has in the past.
Unlike the Bloc Quebecois, Reformers realize that the government is having some severe cash problems. We are not asking the government to start borrowing a whole bunch more money to continue the funding of the programs at the levels we were accustomed to in the past.
We owe about $500 billion and our interest payments are far more than all the programs put together, but the government is cutting back its transfer payments in support of the programs. There is no doubt about it. Transfer payments in support of health care to the provinces have been declining. There is no reason to believe that sooner or later it will come to the point where there will be no federal money going to the provinces.
I suppose this would be all right if the provinces were allowed, as the funds were withdrawn or diminished, to have a say in how the health care systems within their provinces were to be run. That would include the provinces having some flexibility to come up with creative funding plans to make up for the moneys they will not be receiving from the federal government.
In some provinces, particularly Alberta, private enterprises have gone into the health care business. The most well known is the Gimble eye clinic in Alberta, a much needed service. It is a very busy place. People are going to the clinic because they cannot get the same kind of treatment on a timely basis through the public health care system.
Now the federal government looks at the private enterprise, this much needed and much used service, and says that it is against the Canada Health Act, that it cannot operate any more, and that if it does the government will cut back on funding.
In B.C. there are a few people making movements to provide portions of private health care in different areas. The federal government is pulling back the transfer payments and funding. I know it has to do it because it does not have any money. It disturbs me that at the same time, notwithstanding that it will not be giving the money, they cannot do anything about it to replace the services they will not have any more. This is grossly unfair to the provinces.
Another part of the bill that really disturbs me is that the government has decided to put itself above what we would consider a judicious procedure in determining whether a province has violated a portion of the Canada Health Act. In other words it is giving itself unilateral powers in the bill to determine whether a province is allowing something to go on that violates stipulations in the Canada Health Act.
It has given itself the unilateral power to decide what the financial penalty shall be. This is placing itself above what we normally would expect would take place in all fairness in a court of law.
Our amendments would force the government, if it believes a violation has taken place, to put the case before a court of law to let a judge decide whether or not there was a violation and if there was exactly what penalty would be payable.
I get concerned when I see such words in government bills, orders in council, governors in council and orders in cabinet. The Liberal government, as did the Tory government, introduced legislation that made it boss. Notwithstanding the arguments that could be put forward by the opposition parties representing their constituents and protecting the interests of the people of Canada against unfair legislation, and notwithstanding that this is supposed to be a House of debate, the government is constantly slipping in provisions in the bill that would allow it to unilaterally make decisions affecting all citizens of Canada.
Where there is no provision for the people of Canada to be protected against bad legislation or bad judgment on behalf of the government of the day, it is treading on democracy. We really object to the fact the government can make not only unilateral decisions but arbitrary decisions that in many cases may not be sound. The decisions may have a profound effect on Canadian people so we have put forth some amendments to deal with it.
We also have a problem with clause 48 that uses the phrase by mutual consent in the context of additional national standards and criteria. The bill would permit the government through discussions with some or all of the provinces to come to a mutual consent with some of them. It would allow them to create a national standard which could be imposed on provinces that did not provide mutual consent to the national standard.
We have introduced some amendments to prevent the federal government from imposing national standards, for example in the case of welfare, without the consent of all provinces. It is simply not fair that a government can arrive at an agreement with some provinces and impose the agreement on all provinces.
My last point deals with the creation of the Canada health and social transfer. The government has put all health funding, welfare funding, Canada assistance plan funding and post-secondary education funding in one basket. It is saying that it will be considered as a lump sum. It has done this for a particular reason. It knows the problems it is running into with the Canada Health Act. It knows the Canada Health Act is redundant at this point. It is simply not working because there is not enough money to fund the plan we have come to know and love and now cannot afford.
As funding for health care in Canada is diminished, I believe to a point of zero in the future, the government will have no stick left to impose a demand on the provinces that they stick to the Canada Health Act. Provinces like Alberta, B.C. and Quebec or any other province might want to be creative in raising funding to raise the quality of health care in their provinces to a level people want. With no funds left in the Canada health transfer payments the government cannot impose any penalties because they are not paying it any money.
It has taken the Canada health payments, the Canada assistance plan payments, the welfare payments, and the post-secondary education payments and put them all into one big basket. If a province wants to get a little creative and flexible in providing health care and in the eyes of the government violates the Canada Health Act in some way, the government makes a unilateral decision that the province is in violation of the sacred Canada Health Act which does not work any more in any event.
The government will have the power to withhold funds from the Canada health and social transfer that now includes post-secondary education, social welfare and the Canada assistance plan. In other words if the province violates a provision of the Canada Health Act in the eyes of the government, the government can hold back money for education and welfare.
We may wonder whether the government has any sense of fairness. We are hearing the same old story: the group wants to keep control in Ottawa and anyone outside Ottawa is considered an additional player and made to toe the line.
We really oppose the fact that the government has purposely put in these clauses in order to get a bigger stick to keep the provinces in line under the Canada Health Act.
We propose to delete a section of clause 51 that would allow the federal government to withhold equalization payments and other provincial transfers for violations under the Canada health and social transfer programs. In other words, the amendments we are proposing to the clause would take away this big stick that the government is so conveniently putting together.
I have spoken about the three areas of my concern on some of these amendments I am putting through. The thing I want to close on is the fact that our social safety net is in deep trouble in this country. The Liberal government under Prime Minister Trudeau introduced a social safety net that was the Cadillac of all plans. We started out driving a Cadillac in our social safety-
