36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 67
CONTENTS
Monday, March 20, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1100
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Canada Health and Social Transfer
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion
|
1105
1110
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1115
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1120
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1125
| amendment
|
1130
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1135
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1140
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1145
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1150
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1155
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1200
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1205
1210
1215
1220
| Mr. John Duncan |
1225
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1230
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1235
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1240
1245
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1250
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1255
1300
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1305
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1310
1315
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1320
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Mr. André Harvey |
1325
1330
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
1335
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1340
1345
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1350
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| PRINCESS PATRICIA'S CANADIAN LIGHT INFANTRY
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1400
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| STRATFORD FESTIVAL
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| MICHAEL STARR
|
| Mr. Ivan Grose |
1405
| JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| TAIWAN
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| MOZAMBIQUE
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| ALCAN'S JOB SHARING PROGRAM
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
1410
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| LEADER OF BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA CONVENTION
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| COUNCIL FOR CANADIAN UNITY
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1425
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
1430
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1435
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1440
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| FEDERAL BRIDGE CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| TAGS
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1445
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| Hon. John Manley |
| THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1450
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1455
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| AMATEUR SPORT
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| RAIL TRANSPORTATION
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1500
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| POINT OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Post-Secondary Education
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| 2076 Company Quartermaster
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Rural Route Mail Couriers
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1510
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Falun Dafa
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Canada Post
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Plutonium
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1515
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Mammography
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Canada Post
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Mammography
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| Canada Post
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Canada Health and Social Transfer
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1520
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1525
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1530
1535
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1540
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1545
1550
1555
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1600
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1605
1610
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1615
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1620
1625
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1630
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1635
1640
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1645
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1650
1655
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1700
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1705
1710
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1715
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1720
1725
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1730
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1735
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1740
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1745
1750
1755
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1800
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1805
1810
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1815
| Division on amendment deferred
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1820
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1825
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 67
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 20, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1100
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADA HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFER
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the
Canada Health and Social Transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the
$1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this
year's federal budget.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this
motion to the House this morning.
I would like to advise the Chair that I will be splitting my
time with my colleague from Calgary East.
The motion before us today is very simple. It is a very small
first step that the government could take today to put its money
where its mouth is on the health care issue.
1105
The issue is simple. The motion states that the finance
minister be directed to cancel the additional money that he
gave to grants and contributions in the last budget and instead
put that money into health care.
We are talking about $1.5 billion. The government at this point
spends over $13 billion on grants and contributions. The finance
minister increased that in this budget by $1.5 billion. We are
saying that over $13 billion is plenty at this point for the
government to spend on grants and contributions, particularly in
light of its very uninspiring track record at mismanaging these
moneys.
We are saying that, instead, this additional $1.5 billion,
topping up the $13 billion already going into grants and
contributions, should be put into our ailing health care system.
This is a very reasonable motion and it is a very small step
that the government could take on the issue of health care.
I will first talk about the government's shocking record of
mismanagement on grants and contributions. Of course, we know
about the record of the human resources department, which spends
over $3 billion in grants and contributions a year.
A recent audit revealed that the government was so lax in
managing this enormous amount of money that in 46% of the cases
there was no estimate on who would be participating in the
projects that were funded. In 72% of the cases there was no cash
flow forecast. In 80% of the cases there was no evidence of
financial monitoring. In 87% of the cases there was no evidence
of supervision of the projects. In 97% of the cases there was no
evidence that anyone had checked on the background and what money
might be owed by the recipients of the grants.
Let us look at an audit that was done of the transitional jobs
fund, just one of the programs that is being funded by the
government. That audit showed that, of the private sector
partners interviewed in the survey, 47% said their projects would
have gone ahead without TJF funding. Almost half would have gone
ahead anyway.
In actual numbers, putting public and private funds together,
because the minister likes to talk about partnerships, all of the
partners together contributed $104,000 for every new job. All of
the others would have been created anyway. The jobs created were
for an average of $13 an hour, which works out to $27,000 a year.
It cost the government $104,000 to create a $27,000 job. Go
figure. At the same time our health care system is going begging
for funding from this government.
The survey added: “The sustainable results must be treated
with caution. The estimates are still based on mere
expectations, not real experiences”.
In other words, these jobs that cost $104,000 each to create are
not even, for sure, long term. They may disappear shortly.
Let us look at an audit of the Atlantic groundfish strategy,
which spent billions of dollars. The April 1999 report of the
auditor general stated: “We have little assurance that all
contributions under the Atlantic groundfish strategy were used
for their intended purposes.
These were part of TAGS active labour adjustment measures, which
were managed, or shall we say mismanaged, by Human Resources
Development Canada”.
1110
Today the news is about HRDC grant cheques. Cheques for nearly
$200 million of HRDC job grants were sent to destinations with
missing, invalid or non-designated postal codes. In other words,
our money is ending up in the hands of people who were not
intended to get it because the government is so mismanaging
that it cannot even get the address right on the envelope.
Another headline reads: “Misusing federal grant money”. The
human resources department tells the Bloc Quebecois that it
cannot have information about a grant because it is under
investigation. The minister said “No, it is not under
investigation”, and that same day, mysteriously, the
investigation disappeared. We have to wonder why. Is there an
investigation or is there not an investigation? Yet, the Prime
Minister has said that anyone caught abusing money will pay for
it. Investigations seem to appear and disappear like fireflies
on a June night.
Another headline concerns Amtrak. The government secretly
loaned $1 billion to a U.S. railroad. This is the same
government that excoriates a supposed move toward American style
health care. It seems quite happy to support $1 billion for an
American train company, but not $1 billion for health care.
Another of today's headlines concerns the Export Development
Corporation, which has loaned billions of dollars to foreign
companies, of which almost $3 billion has already had to be
written off. Imagine what that $3 billion which the government
squandered could have done for our health care system. The
government does not have money for health care, but it does have
money for the Export Development Corporation so that selected
companies in Canada can get sweetheart contracts. Those
companies, just by the by, have been heavy supporters of the
Liberal Party.
Another headline today concerns Telefilm Canada, which is heavily
subsidized by the government to protect our culture
against those nasty Americans. One of the
companies that we have been supporting with our money, which we
work for, has been fraudulently using Americans to write scripts
so they can get a tax credit. This is just today's news.
Another headline concerns DND overpayments. It notes that on at
least three cases the defence department paid the same bill
twice.
That is the government's record of mismanaging our money, and
yet the government says it has no money for health care. That just
is not good enough.
Today my colleagues and I will be talking about why the
government should get serious about putting money into our health
care system, which it has stripped of the resources needed to
keep it on an even footing. My colleagues and I will talk about
the numbers, about the billions that have been stripped from our
health care system by the government, while it misuses, abuses,
squanders, wastes and pork barrels billions of dollars on other
programs. It is not good enough and we want it stopped. We want
a reversal, and that is what this motion is about today.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me
correctly, it has been pointed out in the House that there were
many grants supporting various organizations, institutions and
other groups in the riding of Calgary—Nose Hill which created
jobs that helped people return to the workforce, easing the
transition.
I just wanted to make sure that I understood her correctly. Is
she saying that the administration of the grants in HRDC needs to
be tightened up?
1115
The minister has stated quite clearly that she has a plan in
which the auditor general is involved and that she is coming in
to clean that up. Perhaps the member could clarify what she is
saying. Is she saying that all the grants and contributions
which went into her riding would be part of this $1.5 billion and
that she would be happy to completely cut them out?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, what a nonsensical
question. Over $13 billion are being spent by the government in
grants and contributions. We have not said that we should cut a
nickel of that, although a lot of people would. In addition to
the $13 billion the government put another $1.5 billion into
these grants programs in spite of its shocking track record of
mismanagement.
We are saying that it should not put one more nickel into grants
and contributions, but that money should be put into health care.
The sick people of Canada are crying for support from the
government, and instead the government has money for all the
boondoggles and all the mismanagement of the past. It can
increase that money but for health care there is only a pittance.
We are saying the money that would have topped up grants and
contributions should go into health care.
The member has the nerve to say that this money creates jobs.
How does he know? Records have not been kept. In fact the
government audits indicate that the job forecasts are not
reliable because information is not available on which to rely. I
ask the member not to mislead Canadian people by pretending this
money has created jobs when the government's own audit says that
job creation forecasts are not believable.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was very
interested in listening to the comments of the Reform Party
member. What is so inexplicable and hard to understand in HRDC
are the inconsistencies such as in the young entrepreneurs
program in Yukon and B.C. where $300,000 were supposed to be
available.
A group of volunteer businessmen got together to help young kids
to do it on their own. Within a year a lot of them had jobs.
They created newspapers and were involved in outfitting and
guiding. They showed really advanced thinking and worked in
remote communities.
This group got together and got everything up and running. They
signed contracts based on the $300,000, but a month later they
were told there was no money for them, that all they would
actually get was $94,000. These people then had to make up the
difference themselves because they were honourable and they had
based their decision on what HRDC had said to them. All the
information that could be brought to the officials at HRDC did
not change them or move them.
This program was successful but was left in the lurch out of the
blue without an explanation. I would like the member's comments
on it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the point is well
taken. These programs have been so mismanaged and so poorly
administered that even the people who were supposed to be helped
are complaining bitterly about being jerked around by the
improper communication and irresponsible management of the
programs.
We are not asking that any of the money put into these programs
be cut. We are asking for these programs to be left in place and
for the money to be left in place. We should not give any more
to those programs right now but the money instead should be given
to health care.
The government cannot get its story straight on health care. On
March 8 the Prime Minister rejected calls for health talks and
told the premiers that they had to fix the system and then he
would talk to them. A few days later the Prime Minister bragged
about meeting with the premiers later this month. Is the
government on or off? As the member said, we can never tell
whether or not the government will go ahead with something. This
does not give the required certainty to people who depend on the
health care system.
1120
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to
speak to today's Reform sponsored supply day motion. I would
like to repeat the motion of my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill
so that it is very well understood.
That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the
Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the
$1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this
year's federal budget.
We all know and it is no state secret that the finance minister
is trying for the Prime Minister's job, but Canadians feel that
health care is the number one priority. Even the Liberal
pollsters stated at the convention that health care was the
number one priority of the country. Partly they feel that under
the Liberal government health care is in a crisis because it has
cut and cut and cut its contributions to health care. At the
same time it increased the HRDC grants and contributions by $1.5
billion.
Over the last few months the official opposition has showed what
has gone massively wrong with the grants and contributions in
HRDC, especially the transition jobs fund. We have asked the
minister and the government for answers on where and how taxpayer
money was spent. We did not get any credible answer.
What we got was a spectacle of stupidity. We now see that the
minister of HRDC was stealing supposedly so-called jobs from the
government's own Liberal MPs next door to her riding and moving
them into her riding in HRDC grants. It has been quite clear
that in the last two and a half months that the HRDC transitional
jobs fund was a slush fund for the government to blatantly buy
jobs and give an impression.
The Prime Minister said that it was his job to work for his
constituency. That is fine, but he forgets he is the Prime
Minister of Canada and his constituency is the whole of Canada,
not only Shawinigan. How can we account for his riding of
Shawinigan getting more money than Alberta, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba combined? How can that be explained? Perhaps the Prime
Minister should be told that he has a whole country to take care
of, not just his friends.
Let us talk about Earth Canada. When we asked a question about
EDC giving money to Earth Canada, which has cronies of the Prime
Minister as directors, the Minister for International Trade said
that it was a business decision. They are hiding behind the fact
that EDC gave money to a firm that could buy services from Earth
Canada. At the end of the day, after we had gone around in
circles, the cronies of the Prime Minister sitting on that board
had benefited from the loan, not the other companies.
We have seen an exposé on EDC. The same has happened with
Amtrak. Money was given to the richest country in the world for
Amtrak and we are financing it. At the end of the day it comes
down to Bombardier in Montreal that will benefit from the
so-called grant. Where is all this money? Somehow somewhere it
points to the Prime Minister, his friends and Liberal cronies
that are appointed to sit on these boards.
Canadians from one end of the country to the other are asking
what is happening with the government, a government that is
lacking in leadership? The pollsters have to tell the Liberals,
not their own MPs who should be listening to their
constituencies, that health care is the number one crisis. It is
the pollsters who have to tell them. It shows how much in touch
Liberals MPs are with their constituents.
It is very easy. If they sit in their offices they will know
what Canadians are telling them.
1125
Why can it not be possible for the government to transfer that
$1.5 billion to health care, the Canada health and social
transfer?
When I was in my riding this past weekend Canadians came to the
office to say that they were worried about health care. Health
care is their number one priority. They are very much worried
about it. The cuts the government made to health care have
created a crisis. The provinces are trying their best to balance
the shortfall.
On the day the Minister of Finance brought down his so-called
great budget, did the government listen to the Premier of
Newfoundland, Brian Tobin, a Liberal colleague? This person, who
would like to be the leader of that party, came out smacking the
government by saying that the health care transfer was not
sufficient and there was crisis?
What do we have? We have the Minister of Finance giving $1.5
billion to grants and contributions in the federal budget so the
government can feed its friends who hold all these positions.
When will the government listen to Canadians? If it does not
then it will end up sitting on the opposition benches.
Let us look at grants and contributions. The government says it
wants to create jobs, but every economist says that taxes in the
country are the number one job killer, the brain drain. A simple
solution is not to throw money. That does not create jobs. Even
the auditor general says so. The simple solution is to reduce
taxes. That would clearly increase productivity in the country.
That would be the simple solution.
What do we get from the Minister of Finance in the budget? A
tax cut. I do not think it is even a modest tax cut. It is a
band-aid solution. Canadian economists all stated that we should
reduce taxes so that productivity would increase and Canada would
rightfully go back to its position as the number one country in
the world.
The official opposition has presented a 17% flat rate plan,
contrary to what the Prime Minister would like to say. That
would address many issues. It would put money back into the
pockets of Canadians. It would put money back into the pockets
of single mothers. It would put money back into the pockets of
women who have decided to stay home to raise their children. That
is where the money should be. At the end of the day it is the
consumer who will drive the economy.
These are simple solutions, but based upon the Liberal
convention last weekend we know the government is lost and
without vision. At this time I would like to move the following
amendment:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the words “the
Minister of Finance to” the word “immediately”.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
1130
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and listened with a lot
of interest to the two speeches by the Reform members. My
evaluation of the speeches by the members for Calgary—Nose Hill
and Calgary East was that they were long on rhetoric and very
short on facts. I will try to get an answer out of the member
for Calgary East.
In the last budget, we transferred emergency funds to the
provinces and they were to spend it. Now we find that in Quebec,
for instance, it took $700 million, which was supposed to go into
health care, and put it into a savings account at the TD Bank. We
transferred $1.3 billion to Ontario, Mike Harris' government.
It spent $750 million of it but banked $556
million, again in a savings account. Mr. Harris says he will
spend every cent of it on health care.
My question for the member is how do we get the provinces to
spend the money we are transferring to them on health care
instead of putting it into a savings account? How do we do that?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, that is quite an
interesting and valid question. I will give him that point as to
why the Quebec government did not use that money.
I would like to say to the member that just after the budget
someone wanting to run for his party was on television stating
that the government had not put enough money into health care.
Last week Brian Tobin was on television saying that the
government had not put enough money into health care.
Maybe the member can tell me if he really thinks that the
government has transferred enough money for health care. Does he
think that?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the member for Calgary East.
I think what we heard from the speech was a camouflage of love
and like for our medicare system. The Reform Party is asking for
$1.5 billion. The federal government has already increased the
budget by $2.5 billion. The Reform Party is too late in asking
for something even less.
I call on the consciousness of those who heard his speech
filled with emotion purported to be for health and yet not one
word did we hear about medicare.
My question to the member is does he believe in medicare?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to
my colleague, I think he has everything wrong.
Let me repeat this so that he can understand it quite clearly.
We are saying that the government should increase the transfer
for health care and social services by the $1.5 billion that it
is going to give to the transitional jobs fund. We are not
talking about the $2.5 billion.
As we have heard, quite clearly, the premiers are saying that
there is not enough money. Why is the government giving $1.5
billion extra to the transitional jobs fund that everyone,
including members of the House, say is a disaster and a fiasco
for this country?
1135
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after listening to the member's speech I have to agree
with him on the transfer payments going to Amtrak and Bombardier.
However, with regard to health, everyone in the House knows that
what the government did to the hepatitis C victims is a disgrace.
It likes to talk about how caring and sharing it is and how it
worries about people but it has only seen fit to pay off the
lawyers in this case.
What does the hon. member think of a government that will pay
off the lawyers and allow the victims to die?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has
raised is exactly what is wrong in the way the whole program is
handled by a government that has no vision. The point is clearly
highlighted that the money has gone to the lawyers because the
government would not make a decision. This is another waste of
taxpayer dollars that is not directly helping Canadians but
helping someone else, as the boondoggle has shown.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we look at
this resolution and what we have heard in the House today, I find
it passing strange that the resolution would call on the federal
government to increase the transfers to the provinces with no
strings attached.
In their speeches, members have called on increased spending for
health care. Why would they not have had the forthrightness to
insist that it go strictly to health care spending?
I also find it passing strange that the member for Calgary East
called on us in a clarion summary to cut taxes. Instead of
spending $1.5 billion here, not cutting spending and transferring
it to the provinces as the resolution said, why did the hon.
member not call on us to cut taxes by a further $1.5 billion? It
is just part of the inconsistencies that we see.
Let me address the issue of federal transfers. First, in the
last four budgets the federal government has increased the CHST
transfers to the provinces for their own spending purposes.
In the previous budget, that of 1999, we increased those
transfers by $11.5 billion. In February's budget, of this year,
we increased it by a further $2.5 billion. That is an increase
of 25% over the last two years and the CHST is now at $31
billion, the highest it has ever been in the history of the
country.
In addition to the CHST, which is $31 billion, we also have to
consider the other transfers that we make to the provinces which
they can spend according to their own priorities. That includes
equalization which, through reforms that we have undertaken, is
now at $9.5 billion.
We also have to take into consideration that when we reformed
the CHST in the previous budget we eliminated the so-called cap
on the CAP. Provinces like Ontario will have benefited to the
tune of almost a billion dollars extra over five years as we move
to an equal sharing among the provinces on a per capita basis.
Let us look at how much these transfers should probably be.
There are a number of issues. We know that the provinces have an
insatiable appetite for any funds that we might make available.
However, what is right and what is fair in the circumstances? Is
it right that we should increase the transfers to provinces that
are still in deficit, that are using the funds for creating tax
cuts, that are borrowing money to pay for tax cuts and saddling
future generations with that burden? Should this be one of our
national priorities?
Should it be a national priority to increase the transfers to a
province, such as Alberta, which has no sales tax today and which
is introducing a flat tax that will proportionally benefit only
the rich at the expense of middle income taxpayers, middle income
taxpayers who will pay more under their flat tax than they would
under the new federal personal income tax proposals brought down
in our last budget? Is this what we should be financing?
1140
Look at the debt burdens of the federal government and the
provinces. Twenty-six cents out of every tax dollar paid
federally goes to pay the interest on our debt. At the
provincial level it is half that, 13 cents. Whose debts are the
most onerous? Which ones should we give priority to as a nation
in attempting to eliminate?
Let us look at health care transfers. The federal and
provincial governments spend a total of $64 billion on health
care in the country. The federal government spends $3 billion
directly. In addition to that, when we look at the overall
transfers that we make, the CHST, which consists of cash and tax
points, is $31 billion. The traditional share of that some 20
years ago was that 54% of that went to health care, so that 54%
of $31 billion is about $17 billion. If we add the $3 billion
that we spend directly, the federal government's contribution to
health care financing in the country is about $20 billion or
about 31% of the total of $64 billion that is spent.
It is not fair for provinces such as Ontario to say that we are
financing only 9% of health care. That is not right. If we add
in the extra almost $10 billion that we pay in equalization, it
would take the federal share to over 50%, assuming all
equalization payments were spent on health care.
In conclusion, regardless of the figures and the debates,
Canadians do not care whether health care is a federal,
provincial, municipal or even United Nations jurisdiction. All
they want is top quality health care when they need it. This is
why they do not want their politicians bickering and fighting.
Canadians have a right to be upset. When ambulances are diverted
away from the nearest emergency ward, when people are let out of
the hospital too soon and do not have adequate alternative care
or home care, when there are long waiting lines and when people
are being shipped to the U.S. for health care treatment,
Canadians expect their political representatives at all levels to
work together to make sure that Canadians continue to have top
quality health care.
As the Prime Minister has said many times, we will not sacrifice
the Canada Health Act. This is why we will not give additional
money to the provinces until we sit down with them and work out
the ways to have those funds directed for the benefit of all
Canadians and to preserve the five principles of medicare. This
is why we have called on the health ministers to come to Ottawa
and discuss these issues with us, to work together. Canadians
expect nothing less of their political representatives and they
deserve that we get together to protect and preserve one of the
greatest health care systems in the world.
The Deputy Speaker: I am assuming that the minister was
splitting his time because I noticed his speech was very short.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Yes, I am.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it seemed very long to me.
I would have expected a little more responsibility from the
assertions made by the member. He is, after all, connected with
the finance department. For example, he criticized the motion
for purporting to give this money to the provinces “no strings
attached”. However, that is the very same condition under
which this government is giving money to health care. It is
giving money under the auspices of the health and social transfer
which is, as far as I know, the only way it can be given.
Why would the member criticize the motion for doing the same
thing the government is doing?
1145
He also said that the last budget gave $2.5 billion more to
health care but he neglected to mention that is over the next
five years. This year less than $1 billion will be given to
health care by the government. Is it not a little duplicitous to
pretend that this budget gave $2.5 billion more to health care
when it is only giving it over the next five years?
Is it also not a fact that the federal government transfers in
support of health care dropped by 28% since the government took
office? We can juggle numbers but the raw fact is that the
federal support for this important program to Canadians dropped
by 28% under the neglect of the government. It cut the heart out
of health care, slashed and burned support and now has the nerve
to attack us for wanting to put back even the most modest amount,
which is only $1.5 billion in our motion.
I invite the member to set the record straight, to be
straightforward when he gives facts, and to tell Canadians
exactly why the government is trying to find excuses not to give
extra money to health care, particularly when it is spending $86
billion more over the next five years. It has $86 billion more
to spend over the next five years than it has today, but it has
just a pittance for health care.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, there are three errors in
what the member for Calgary—Nose Hill just said.
First, the total transfers reached a high in 1993-94 of $29
billion when we consider the cash component and the tax points.
Under this budget they will go to about $31 billion, an all-time
high. They have not been cut. We have to take into
consideration not just the cash component but the tax points
which we gave to the provinces which they can draw down on and
which represent cash in their hands. Forgone taxes at the
federal level, increased tax revenue at the provincial level, it
is cash in their hands along with the cheque we actually give
them.
Second, the member was absolutely wrong when she said that the
$2.5 billion in the February budget was over five years. That
can be drawn down immediately by the provinces.
Third, she was wrong when she said that we are not prepared to
give extra to health care. We have called on the provinces to
send their health ministers to Ottawa to work out with us the
ways to preserve the Canada Health Act and medicare. We will not
give it no strings attached. We want to make sure that one of
the best medical delivery systems in the world is maintained and
is not eroded by provinces that want to privatize it, such as
Alberta. We will not allow that.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind the hon. member that when the provinces signed
on to the medical system it was supposed to be a 50:50
proposition. Now we are down the member says 9% but I will give
him the benefit of the doubt and say 13% of federal financing.
My question pertains more to what the government is doing in
regard to the hepatitis C victims. The government has allowed
the victims to sit with absolutely no compensation at all. Some
of these people are not capable of working. They are sick. Some
are close to dying and yet the government has seen fit to only
pay the lawyers and not the victims.
I would like to know, since the member is in the financial end
of this, how much interest is he saving by not paying the
victims?
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member was
not listening when I talked about the share of public money
provided by the federal government and the provincial governments
for the delivery of health care services.
Let me start again. There is about $64 billion spent by the
federal and provincial governments combined on delivering health
care services in Canada. The transfers we make to the provinces,
the CHST, are $31 billion.
Traditionally 54% of that went to health care as opposed to
post-secondary education and social welfare. That would be about
$17 billion out of the $31 billion which is our contribution. Add
to that the $3 billion we spend directly for health care to
Canada's first peoples, to our military and to the RCMP and we
are at $20 billion. Twenty billion dollars out of $64 billion is
31%. It is not 13% as the member said. If we add to that the
close to $10 billion in equalization that we make to the
provinces, which can be spent on health care, it is well over
60%. It is not 13% as the member said.
1150
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to the opposition motion. It gives me an
opportunity to highlight all the grants and contributions
programs that are making such tremendous differences in the lives
of so many Canadians.
The grants and contributions we are talking about are moneys
that go to help Canadians who have not been able to find work. It
is done through targeted wage subsidies and through
self-employment assistance. It is money that goes to communities
that may not have a diversified economy to help build new
opportunities and jobs for the people who want and need them. It
is money that goes to young Canadians to help them land their
first work experience, or to youth at risk to help them make a
fresh start in life. It is money that goes to hundreds of
thousands of more Canadians to help them get the literacy and the
life and job skills needed to turn their lives around.
These are the kinds of programs we are talking about. They are
proven programs that Canadians have come to count on. That money
is invested in communities across the country regardless of
political stripe.
At the heart of these programs is the notion that in return for
individual responsibility we must expand opportunity. We must
give Canadians the tools they need to succeed. These programs
are about expanding opportunity for hundreds of thousands of
Canadians.
Our economy with its 1.9 million new jobs is stronger today than
it has been in generations. We are making one of the greatest
economic expansions in Canadian history with unemployment at its
lowest levels in more than two decades.
These programs are hard at work for Canadians who have been left
out of the new economy. Thousands of individual Canadians and
thousands of small organizations depend on these programs for
their livelihood and indeed for their very survival.
The transitional jobs fund created jobs for over 30,000
Canadians, bringing new hope to areas of high unemployment. Its
successor, the Canada jobs fund, is continuing to create jobs
today. These are practical programs that are helping the
unemployed get jobs.
I should point out that the vast majority of the jobs created
are permanent year round jobs. The Canada jobs fund's success is
based on valuable partnerships forged between the Government of
Canada, the provinces and territories, the private sector and
local communities to help create opportunities and jobs for
Canadians.
I am talking about 30,000 Canadians who now have work thanks to
opportunities we have created, work that would not have been
available otherwise. We are helping people to provide for
themselves and for their families. Those people know the pride
of bringing home a regular paycheque and know the dignity of
making their own way in the world.
The Government of Canada also recognizes the need to help young
people and has acted on it. We have created successful programs
to help young people develop the skills they need to build for
the future. So far over 300,000 young Canadians have been able
to give their careers a boost by landing their first work
experience, landing summer jobs or by starting their own
businesses.
I am talking about programs that stress both opportunity and
responsibility and give our young people the tools they need to
compete in the new global economy. Programs like youth service
Canada are giving young people the opportunity to serve their
communities and to earn money toward their own education.
1155
These programs are bringing tangible benefits to communities
from coast to coast to coast. They are giving young Canadians a
chance to roll up their sleeves and get involved with projects in
crime prevention, literacy and the environment right in their own
backyards. These programs are helping youth at risk to put new
direction in their lives. They are helping them to learn the
enormous value of helping their fellow Canadians.
Programs like youth internship Canada are helping youth to break
into the job market and break the no experience, no job cycle.
They are giving young people the life and job skills they need to
turn their lives around. These internships are providing young
people with meaningful work experience in growth sectors of our
economy such as science and technology, international trade and
development. These programs are really working.
Seventy-eight per cent of youth service Canada participants and
88% of youth internship Canada participants who have finished
their programs are now employed, self-employed or have gone back
to school. At the same time more than 90% of students and
employers were satisfied with their summer job placements. These
numbers show Canadians real value for their tax dollars. Once
again the numbers tell the story.
In 1998 youth employment in Canada increased more than it did in
any other year on record. It increased again last year by
another 73,000 jobs. So we begin the new century with the lowest
youth unemployment rate in almost a decade and another 12,000
young Canadians found work in January. Even more important, we
are giving our young people the confidence to build the future of
their dreams. We are giving them the power to seize the
opportunities of the new century.
I am absolutely convinced that these programs have helped
countless young men and women find opportunities that would
otherwise not have been available. I am convinced that these
programs are transforming the lives of many Canadians. These
programs are proof positive that government can play a
significant role in the lives of individual Canadians. They can
forge strong partnerships with business and communities to create
new opportunities which reward work and strengthen families. We
are determined to fulfill our promise to give all Canadians the
opportunities to succeed.
Over the next year, rather than slackening the pace, Canadians
can expect to see a focused and energetic drive to give more
Canadians the tools and opportunities they need to support their
families and ensure Canada remains one of the best countries in
the world in which to live.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the member the same question I have
asked other government members with regard to the health care
issue.
Many people in this country had total faith in our health
system. They became victims of hepatitis C. The government has
recognized this fact. Provinces such as Quebec have voluntarily
come across with their share to these victims, yet the government
has done nothing. The only thing it has done is pay off the
lawyers.
What does the hon. member think of this? Should these people be
paid and paid now?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, yes these people should
be paid. The government is on record as saying that they should
be paid. In fact the government is working very hard toward that
end. Unlike the province of Ontario with a one time payment of
$10,000 which would not go very far for many of the victims, the
fact is that the Government of Canada has a long term commitment
to make sure drugs and so on will be available, unlike the short
term band-aid approach as in the province of Ontario.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, talk is cheap with the government.
I was astonished at the member's naive assertion of job creation
numbers. The fact is that there is no evidence upon which the
government can base its so-called job creation successes because
it has not done its homework. It has not supervised the way the
money is spent.
1200
Even the last audit did not evaluate the results of the program.
It simply evaluated the administration of the program. The
government is blowing hot air when it talks about jobs being
created. The fact is, it does not know for sure.
One audit states: “The sustainability results must be treated
with caution. The estimates are still based on mere
expectations, not real experiences”. The government has not
done an audit or an evaluation on which it could base these
numbers. It throws them out, blindly assuming that everyone is
going to swallow its rhetoric when it is not based on anything
credible to which Canadians can tie their belief.
I would hope that Canadians would not be taken in by this kind
of rhetoric about hope, about creating jobs, about 30,000 people
having work and transforming lives. The fact is, there is
growing evidence that these pork barrel moneys actually destroy
jobs because they help certain parts of the economy and penalize
others, competitors and other businesses that are not getting
government help. There is no evaluation of that.
The last thing that was so amazing was that the member said
unemployment is at low levels and the government has created
jobs. The fact is that Alberta and Ontario have created jobs
because they have gotten their act together, along with some of
the other provinces, balanced their books, gotten their tax
regimes in order and created jobs in their provinces all by
themselves, while this government continues to jack up job
destroying taxes. For the government to claim credit for the
good management of the provinces is absolutely repugnant. I ask
the member to apologize to the provinces for taking credit for
their hard work.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I am not an apologist for
the provinces, unlike my colleague.
My colleague wants evidence. When this government came to
office in 1993 the unemployment rate exceeded 11%. In February
it was 6.8%, the lowest since April 1976. I suggest that is
evidence. I also suggest to the member that she go back and take
a look at the fact that the province Ontario has not balanced its
books.
As one of my colleagues said earlier on the whole health debate,
the Government of Ontario was transferred $1.2 billion last year,
plus a one-time cheque for $950 million after the CAP was
eliminated. It then sat on $500 million. At the same time, in
December, when Ontario had one of the most major flu epidemics in
the history of the province, 16 out 18 hospitals in the greater
Toronto area were redirecting the ambulance service.
If the province of Ontario is so concerned about health care,
why is it not using the dollars to help the citizens of that
province rather than sitting on $500 million? Clearly, the
Government of Canada transfers dollars. It does not administer
the health care system, the ERs, ambulances, et cetera. Maybe the
member should get her facts straight.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
begin by thanking our colleagues of the Reform Party for their
motion in the House today, which we as a party shall be pleased
to support.
I would like to read the motion for the benefit of our audience.
It reads:
That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the
Canada Health and Social Transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the
$1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this
year's federal budget.
This motion comprises two key ideas.
The first is that we need to put more money into health and that
this money needs to be put where it counts for the federal
government, namely in transfer payments.
1205
The second is that there is such a mess at Human Resources
Development Canada, with the mismanagement of the present
minister, that there is no point in increasing grants and
contributions.
We say yes to both proposals by the Reform Party, and I will try
to address them separately.
First, I would like to call for calm. I can sense a certain
excitement among the Liberals and would ask them to keep calm. I
would ask them particularly to spare us the disgusting
spectacle—the member for Québec East and Drummond will agree
with me—which I would not be able to stand for very long, of
them shamelessly tearing each other apart publicly in an utterly
painful spectacle.
I conclude my digression by saying that I had the impression
watching the Liberal Party convention on the weekend that it was
a sort of bitch back session, in which each had something to
bitch about with the other.
I would appeal for calm and dignified behaviour. Yes, everyone
wants the Prime Minister to go. However, the decision to do so
is his. I think a certain amount of composure is necessary in
politics.
That said, I want to return to the two elements of the proposal
before us.
When history records the second term of the Liberals, it will
record the blatantly gross incompetence displayed by the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
People have to understand that we are not opposed to a program
that helps to create jobs. I myself as the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, representing a riding with over 20%
unemployment, have nothing against a program to help develop
business and create jobs. In an economy like ours, salary
subsidies often play a role for those about to have their first
job and often help get business going.
I have no hesitation in saying that, in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
some companies found it helpful to get grants, and my community
benefited from such grants. However, what the Reform Party
motion says is that it does not make sense to have let things
happen without any kind of control.
I remind members of Emploi-Québec. An extraordinary job was done
by merging three major organizations into a single entity,
Emploi-Québec. The members opposite behaved like hypocrites by
making fun of Emploi-Québec, of the problems of a new
organization and of Diane Lemieux.
It is unbelievable to see that the Department of Human Resources
Development, which is not a new department and which did not
integrate three new organizations, is characterized by a
carelessness and lack of control that justify the opposition's
concerns.
I would like to remind government members of a number of facts.
The minister released the internal audit report on grants and
contributions in mid-January. The auditor took a close look at
seven categories of programs that were part of the sample being
reviewed. The grants and contributions under these programs
totalled about $1 billion per year over a three year period, or
about $3 billion.
Let us look at the situation as it was presented in mid-January
by the Minister of Human Resources Development. When we see
these figures, we cannot imagine something like this taking
place in a democracy.
We cannot imagine that such incompetence in a department like
Human Resources Development Canada, given the importance it
should have within the government.
1210
In 87% of projects, there was no indication of supervision by
officers and, in 80%, no evidence of financial control. This is
no small matter. The first thing one learns in public
administration is that any accountant in whatever business in
whatever town, however small, may not authorize an expenditure
without supporting documentation.
In a department engaged in an undertaking as important as the
job creation fund, there was no evidence of financial control in
80% of the projects in the sample I mentioned. I have this to say
to the government members “Wake up, get with it, and do
something because this is ridiculous”. How can the public trust
this government when it is not even able to assume its most basic
management responsibilities?
There was no indication that expected results were attained in
75% of projects and contributions in the sample. Management
indicators is the administrative term used. As I am sure hon.
members are aware, in the case of programs such as the community
action program for children, the national AIDS strategy, or the
drug strategy of years gone by, community organizations, which
are often operating on tight budgets, in the field, and who make
the difference for thousands and thousands of Canadians, are
required to observe sound management practices, and they do.
They are required to have controls and to assess results, while
a national program such as the transitional job creation fund
was not even able to deliver the goods in 80% of the projects
sampled.
For 70% of projects, there were no invoices or pay lists in
support of expenditures.
Of these project files, 66% contained no analysis or
documentation. In 36% of cases where the amounts had been
increased, no reason was indicated.
In politics, debates must not become personal. I do not doubt
that the Minister of Human Resources Development is a
fascinating and lovely woman. However, anyone administering an
organization along the same lines as the minister's
administration of her department would have been let go long
ago.
Anyone in charge of a community group, of a business, of
any kind of organization with results as terrible as these, of
any self-respecting body with the least bit of organization,
would have long ago been asked to resign.
This is a most worrisome situation.
Before getting into the health aspect of the motion, I could
give some other examples. According to the documents, at least
seven projects in Quebec received approval and funding before
they were even submitted. The same thing goes for 15 others
elsewhere in Canada.
All manner of horror stories have prompted
my colleague, the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, a man generally
recognized as responsible and highly knowledgeable about the
Department of Human Resources Development—he has been the critic
for it since June 1998—to call for the government to cast some
light on this. Members of the opposition, in particular members
of the Bloc Quebecois, have called on it to do so. The best
approach is, of course, a public and general inquiry into all of
the cases involved.
This does not mean an investigation with a case by case report
on all allegations that have come to our attention.
Before moving on to the health aspect, hon. members know that I
cannot remain silent on the patronage in the form of nepotism,
verging on misappropriation of funds, that went on in the Prime
Minister's riding.
The Prime Minister, who had never totally abandoned the
tradition of patronage that has always characterized successive
Liberal governments, has apparently resumed the habit. With all
the subtlety of which he is capable, which we have seen at work
this past weekend, the Prime Minister said to himself “Everybody
wants to get on board the gravy train, and the gravy train stops
at Shawinigan”.
1215
How many investigations are currently under way in Shawinigan?
My colleague, the member for Frontenac—Mégantic could tell me. I
think they are up to four.
What can we say about what happened in Rosemont? Rosemont is in
the centre of Montreal, and Montreal has undergone a process of
industrial obsolence, leading all the partners to take action to
create a new knowledge based economy. How did a case of grants
in Rosemont end up in Shawinigan?
Do you not think this is a nasty tradition of patronage,
thievery, cronyism and mishandling of funds, which has not been
seen for a long time on such a scale, but which has always been
a Liberal trademark?
That said, members understand the essence of the motion. The
aim of it is to have the $1.5 billion that would normally go as
additional funding for the grants and contributions programs go
instead to transfer payments.
Many people in Quebec and Canada have called for the
restoration of transfer payments. For example, at the premiers
conference in Hull at the end
of January, all the premiers, New Democrat, Conservative or
Liberal—do not fool yourself that Brian Tobin, who was here on
budget night, does not want it—called for the restoration of the
transfer payments.
The transfer payments are the most eloquent evidence of
federalist hegemony, of federalism that could care less about
the provinces.
I would like to mention some figures compiled by the hard
working Bloc Quebecois researchers, whom I take this opportunity
to thank, including Thierry Bransi, who recently joined our
team. These figures are based on the official figures of the
Department of Finance.
Since the 1994-95 fiscal year, the federal government made major
cuts to cash payments. In 1999-2000, these cash payments totalled
$14.5 billion, compared to $18.7 billion for the 1994-95 fiscal
year. This means that cuts of $4.2 billion were made to cash
payments.
I said it a number of times in this House, Madam Speaker, and I
believe you were in the Chair when I did. I apologize for
repeating it and I would not want you to think that I always say
the same thing. However, in politics it is sometime necessary to
repeat the same thing over and over again to get the message
across.
We must be patient with government members. Liberal government
members have great human qualities, but they are not always very
courageous. They are not very energetic when it comes to calling
their government to order.
Out of this annual amount of $1.5 billion in transfer payments
that we are asking for, that the Reform Party motion proposes,
$500 million should go to Quebec for health. As members may
recall, the Quebec premier said at the first ministers'
conference that this was the amount for transfer payments.
I want to make it very clear for our fellow citizens and explain
that, historically, when we talked about transfer payments, we
were referring to the established programs financing and to the
Canada assistance plan.
In 1994, the Liberal government, claiming that this would
provide greater flexibility to the provinces in the use of these
funds, created the Canada social transfer for health and social
programs.
This Canada social transfer is more or less the funding
available for post-secondary education, health and income
security. For health alone, Quebec should receive $500 million
if the health component of the transfer payments were restored
to its 1994-95 level.
1220
Five hundred million dollars is not inconsequential. It is an
amount that could be put to very good use by the Government of
Quebec. It corresponds to the natural growth in Quebec's health
and social services system. If, in 2001, we want to provide
exactly the same health services we are now providing to
Quebecers—CLSCs, hospitals, long term care—the natural growth is
$500 million.
We will not have bought any new equipment, eliminated the
deficit, or added any new services. The natural growth of the
system is such that, in 2001, we will be exactly where we are in 2000.
I would like to tell the House what $500 million represents in
the health and social services system. The $500 million we
should be getting from the federal government for the health
budget corresponds to one quarter of the budget for hospitals in
Montreal.
During last week's break, I met with hospital administrators.
Things are not easy. They are facing some tremendous
challenges. The Government of Quebec has put a considerable
amount into Quebec's health care system but there are still
needs that are not being met. Additional staff are also needed.
So the $500 million is one quarter of the budget for hospitals
in Montreal. It is one half of the budget for all CLSCs in
Quebec. The innovative CLSC formula of delivering front-line
services is well known.
From the cradle to the grave, people can benefit from the
services provided by the CLSCs, whether it is for home support,
for community services, or for blood sampling, which is no
longer done in hospitals. The purpose of this strategy is to
relieve the pressure in our hospitals.
I must remind members that the $500 million we are asking for
represents the total budget for home support services. As I have
said before, and I think it is worth repeating, there is a new
trend whereby people want to stay in their community as long as
possible.
I see people who are getting closer and closer to their golden
years. Some of our parliamentary colleagues are getting there. I
am thinking of our colleague from Willowdale—
Hon. Jim Peterson: Careful.
Mr. Réal Ménard: —the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions—
Hon. Jim Peterson: You are no spring chicken yourself.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I will turn 38 on May 13. I am certainly not a
senior citizen.
Seniors are those over 60 years of age. Some of our colleagues
have reached or are about to reach that stage, even though they
are still very alert and active, as we can see every day. These
people will want to stay in their community. It is important
that the government invest in home support services.
I see my time has expired and I thank you for your attention. I
call on all members to vote in favour of the motion.
Again, I would like cash transfers to be restored and I also
would like the Liberals to spare us having to watch the
disgusting spectacle of them fight their leadership war in
public. We do not need that.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for the
support he expressed for the opposition day motion. I listened
quite carefully to what he had to say.
Prior to the 1997 election the Liberals funnelled grants and
contributions into some Quebec ridings, particularly the types of
ridings where they felt obviously that they would get a payback
if they put money into them.
Now they have added $1.5 billion to the grants and contributions.
1225
We know the Liberal priority is politics before what is best for
Canadians. The number one priority of Canadians is of course
health care.
Mr. Joe McGuire: What profession are you in?
Mr. John Duncan: The parliamentary secretary is not happy
with me saying that, but that is the way I feel about it. Does
the increase in grants and contributions in the 2000 budget
signal that the government is preparing to do the same thing all
over again?
I have a question for the Bloc member. We are looking at
pre-election politics now. We are maybe only a year away from
the next election. What is the Bloc planning to do if and when
this strategy on the part of the Liberal government starts to
exhibit itself all over again, not that we ever lost it but that
we may see a peak of activity again. What is the Bloc's strategy
to try to offset that?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question,
and one of the best I have ever been asked.
As the hon. member is aware, the Bloc Quebecois is the strongest
political force in Quebec, with 44% of the seats. Under the
skilful leadership of the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie,
who is, let us not forget, the most popular federal political
leader in Quebec, we are going to continue to defend the
interests of Quebec. As hon. members are well aware, the
Liberal Party has always been characterized by a tradition of
nepotism, patronage, mishandling of funds, and theft.
Not all Liberals are like that. There are some honest people in
the Liberal Party.
I would not like to be unparliamentary, but hon. members will
agree. I believe that the best guarantee one can give to
Quebecers is to have a political party like the Bloc Quebecois.
This is important. We are wholly dedicated to defending the
interests of Quebec, with clear funding.
The Bloc Quebecois is there so that no matter what the
circumstances, whenever there is a bill, whenever there are
policies to be evaluated, we can ensure that there is no
competition with the allegiance to New Brunswick, to
Saskatchewan, to British Columbia, because all of the Bloc
Quebecois MPs, not being members of a traditional national
party, are here to defend the interests of Quebecers.
I believe the best thing that can be hoped for is for Quebecers
to continue to have confidence in the first federal political
force in Quebec, that is the Bloc Quebecois, as they have in two
elections already. I believe that it will continue to be
present in the next election.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
hear the Bloc Quebecois members tell us they are the purest of
the pure, while we are supposed to be a party of thieves. This
is completely unparliamentary.
This shows a lack of respect for the people defending the
interests of Quebec just as vigorously as the people from the
Bloc. But they are the good Quebecers. People like me, who
live in Quebec, whose children are there, who contribute to
Quebec—I myself spent nine years in the National Assembly—we are
bad Quebecers.
Listen to the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve telling us how he
needs another $500 million or $1 billion for hospitals.
That takes a heck of a lot of gall. He is talking about $500
million, which represents one quarter of the budget for
hospitals in Quebec. And then we have Mr. Landry, the great PQ
bagman, who busts his britches daily, and who left $841 million
sitting in a bank, not in Quebec, but in Toronto, in the Toronto
Dominion Bank.
So, if $500 million represents one quarter of the budget for
hospitals, $841 million, according to my calculations,
represents 42% of the budget.
Quebec nurses went out on strike. They were out in the streets
for weeks saying “We are badly paid, the equipment is out of
date”—
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: The question.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Listen to them, they are not prepared to
hear the truth. We are thieves, but we do not insult them, we
do not talk of thievery. Each time we say something to them,
they are not happy.
1230
The result is that the people of Quebec cannot even get cancer
treatment. They have to go to the States. There are waiting
lists months long, and $841 million was left in a bank in
Ontario. What is more, Mr. Landry himself has admitted “It is
not a matter of money. It is a matter of hospital management”.
He told us it was not a matter of money, and today he says he
needs $500 million. Get the money out of Toronto. Send it to
Quebec City. Use it.
They have to stop insulting people. They say they are the good
Quebecers, and we are the bad Quebecers. I cannot accept that.
I find that really insulting.
Let them take the money out the bank in Toronto, send it to
Quebec City to meet the needs of hospitals.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I only have one thing to say to
the hon. member. Where was he, this great protector of Quebec's
interests, when his government unilaterally cut into transfers
to the provinces? Where was the hon. member when the time came
to protect Quebecers against Bill C-20? What word describes the
current situation where several RCMP investigations are being
conducted in the Prime Minister's riding? How do we define the
practice of diverting funds from the riding of Rosemont to
Shawinigan?
Stop displaying this holier-than-thou attitude and speak up when
money is diverted. You are a prime example of those Quebecers at
the federal level, of those who remain silent when the Liberal
Party is in office, but who do not hesitate to betray Quebecers
when the time comes to protect their interests.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is here and will continue to be
here. Thank goodness the Bloc Quebecois is in this House and will be
there at the next federal election.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I will try to tone it down just a little bit here. I
think they both have valid points and they should debate this
out.
I actually find this quite humourous, especially coming from the
government. The member is quite right. There is no doubt that
the government has cut transfer payments to the provinces with
regard to the health care system. When the provinces signed into
this system they were guaranteed a 50:50 split. Now we are down
to about 13%.
What I would like to ask the member is this. Although we—
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I would ask
members from both sides to please listen to the hon. member for
Okanagan—Shuswap, who now has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson: I must congratulate the province of
Quebec, even though I may disagree with that government on many
issues. With regard to the hepatitis C victims, the province of
Ontario and the province of Quebec have seen fit to at least
address payment to these victims.
Has the member done any calculations as to how much money the
so-called caring, sharing Liberal government has saved by not
paying the victims, by just paying the lawyers and allowing the
victims to do without? I would like to have an opinion from the
member on this if I could.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I would like to dedicate my
reply to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. The hepatitis C issue
is another example of this government's insensitivity and
groveling. The government's decision was the ultimate blow to
hep C victims.
What was the number one recommendation in the Krever report?
That all victims be compensated, regardless of fault. Once
again, this government let them down and no Liberal voice,
whether from Quebec or elsewhere, defended these people.
I say shame on this government. Shame on this bunch of sheep and
followers.
1235
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
I have seen a lot of opposition day motions in the three years
that I have been in the House but I have to say that this one
today from the Reform Party really takes the cake.
Looking at this motion and at the record of the Reform Party
after advocating and endorsing massive cuts to our social
infrastructure, it seems to me that it is the height of hypocrisy
to suddenly come out in favour of increasing the Canada health
and social transfer purse.
Let us be very clear. The real intent of the Reform Party with
this motion today is to undermine federal spending, a long term
strategy that hurts Canadians rather than helping them.
The Reform Party members do not care about the CHST. They are
always campaigning against it and campaigning to cut it. They do
not care about cuts to health care that are so massive that they
threaten our most treasured social program, health care, and
endanger the lives of Canadians who are forced to wait for
essential services in Canada. Even worse, it is the Reform Party
that has supported a two-tier health care system. It supports
privatization. It has consistently supported Draconian cuts to
our social infrastructure in the name of deficit cutting. It has
consistently advocated diverting dollars needed to repair our
social support into tax cuts. Let us be very clear that the tax
cuts which it advocates favour the rich over the poor.
Let us make no mistake. Reformers are not concerned about
increasing the CHST purse. They are attempting to score
political points by using the scandal at HRDC to attack all
federal spending.
Where was the Reform Party after the budget? The NDP was here
every single day during question period going after the
government, making it accountable on health care spending and
pointing out the deficit that existed. Strangely, I do not
remember the Reform Party ever raising questions about the budget
and health care. It had its own little campaign going on. It
suddenly appears and it is now supporting the Canada health and
social transfer.
There was an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen
on March 11. I hope Reform members will listen to this because
it is an article written by one of their own members, the member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, a leadership candidate. In the
article he talks about health care and says:
Therefore, the system needs more money. Raising taxes is not an
option, nor is taking large sums from other government programs
that are already cash-strapped.
This was said by a Reform Party member. Let us sort this out. I
think the Reform Party needs to have a caucus meeting to
determine exactly what its position is. Is it the position of
the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca or is it the position from
the critic for HRDC?
The member goes on to say:
However, new resources can be assessed by amending the Canada
Health Act to allow private clinics and services paid for by
private money only. No public funds are used in the private
clinics. People assessing private services would no longer be
draining the public system, thereby leaving more money and better
care for those still in the public system. The private system
would in effect be strengthening the public system.
That is the position of the Reform Party and this motion before
us today is really a bogus motion.
Let us dwell for a moment on the $1.5 billion that the Reform
Party is seeking to defer, not just from grants and contributions
in HRDC but from all other government programs as a result of any
increase in the budget. Exactly what would that include? What
is it that the Reform Party is advocating, which it says should
be diverted but which really means cut, in order to put this $1.5
billion back into the CHST?
It would include $560,000 for first nations policing programs.
It would support contributions to the Canadian Blood Services of
$355,000. It would mean taking $1.2 million away from the safer
community initiative, something that is very important to my
riding. What about the contributions to the youth justice
renewal fund, something that the Reform Party has been
supporting? These are the kinds of programs the Reform Party is
advocating be cut, be slashed, in order to make a political point
of now suddenly being in favour of increasing the Canada health
and social transfer.
1240
Many of these programs are good programs and they have been put
in jeopardy by Liberal mismanagement. The answer is not to
attack the programs. We believe the answer is to end the Liberal
mismanagement and the politicization that has taken place.
As New Democrats we have supported job creation. We have been
very clear on that. We support student employment. We support
job development in areas of high unemployment. What we do not
support, however, is the Liberals making a mockery of these
programs through gross mismanagement. We do not support programs
being approved for political purposes, as the mounting evidence
clearly shows.
How many RCMP investigations do we have now? There is no
question—and this is where we would agree with the Reform
Party—that we absolutely need to have an independent public
inquiry to immediately get to the bottom of the Liberal slush
funds, the corporate bailouts and the corruption that has taken
place.
We need to fix these programs so they can end up benefiting
Canadians who need them. However, Reform's call to divert
federal spending increases fails to address the problem and fails
to hold the Liberals accountable for perpetuating those problems
we are trying to deal with. In fact the government has set
itself up and in doing so has impugned public servants and the
entire social infrastructure. The cynicism that has grown in the
Canadian public's mind has come about because of this
mismanagement.
We believe that the CHST should be increased by $1.5 billion,
not in diverted dollars but as a repayment of the billions of
dollars that this government has taken from health care,
education, social welfare and social programs since it came to
power in 1993.
Canadians know from their own real experience what has happened
to the health care system. They know what has happened as a
result of those lost federal dollars over the last six years. We
have patients living in hospital corridors because there are no
beds available. We have rural and, in fact, urban areas that
have a critical shortage of nurses and other health care
providers. We have women and families who are forced to take
responsibility for providing home care because the health system
is failing.
We also know that Canadians are paying more out of their own
pockets for health care than they ever were before. Why? Because
the government has taken $21.5 billion from transfer payments to
the provinces for health and other social programs. Despite its
own glowing words of putting money back into health care in the
last budget, the real evidence shows that for every dollar spent
on tax cuts only a piddling two cents went into the health care
system. Is it any wonder then that more and more Canadians are
paying out of their own pockets for health care and that it is on
the rise?
Our federal government used to pay 50% of health care. It was a
partnership between the provinces and the federal government. It
is no longer a partnership. It is a total disgrace and Canadians
know that. We know that the 50% has now dwindled to 14% in the
most recent budget. This Reform motion really does not change
that.
The real threat to our health care system is the two-tier system
and privatization. The biggest threat in that regard is the
Reform Party which is crusading for privatization. We see it in
Alberta, in Ontario, from its own leadership candidates and from
its members here in the House. They have been aided and abetted
by a government in power that simply does not have the guts to
stand up and stop what is going on, to say clearly to Alberta, to
Ontario and to privatization that it will not stand for it and
that it will see this stopped.
We in the NDP have been very clear that we want to see a
restoration of public funds. We want to see federal funds go
back to 25%. I ask the Reform Party if it is prepared to support
that. If it is committed to the CHST, is it prepared to support
our call that it at least go back to 25% of federal funding and
increase after that?
In conclusion, the problem with this motion is that it has no
credibility. It will not solve the problem for HRDC.
It will not even help medicare. It certainly will not help the
Reform Party as it desperately tries to gain trust with Canadians
on health care.
1245
This motion simply will not do it. That is why we in the NDP
will not support it. We will continue to go after the government
to make it accountable on health care. We will also expose the
Reform Party for really what is a very phoney motion.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to what the member said. I can tell her
that half of what she was saying is not right.
It is quite interesting. She said that she is not going to
support the motion on the increase that is coming from one side
to the other side which requires urgent attention, which is
health care. In the same breath she wanted the Reform Party to
ask that more money be put into CHST.
Where does the hon. member think the money is going to come
from? Will it be by raising more taxes, taxing the poor, taxing
the mothers who are staying home? Where does she expect all this
money to come from? She knows very well that it is the
mismanaged HRDC program where she sees all this money going down
the tube. Why will this money not be more effectively used to
address the health care issue? Why would she advocate raising
taxes and putting more burden on Canadians when we could use
other funds? Perhaps she could clarify that situation.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his good and fair question.
We in the NDP are not prepared to say that we are going to rob
other programs such as policing programs, safer communities,
aboriginal programs, status of women programs. We are not
prepared, to use the Reform words, to divert funds from those
programs, to rob Peter to pay Paul, in order to make it look like
more money is going into health care.
The member raised the question of where that money should come
from. The reality is the government has had the biggest
budgetary surplus that we have probably seen in Canadian history,
$100 billion. We have been very clear in our position. In fact my
hon. colleague who will be speaking after me put out an excellent
minority report detailing where those funds should be reinvested:
in health care, in education, in social welfare, in ending
poverty, in housing. We have been very clear about that.
We do not support the kinds of massive tax cuts that really only
put pennies in people's pockets while at the same time they spend
30% more on private health care as a result of the demise of our
health care system. I hope that answers the hon. member's
question.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member. Her
speech has been one of the best ones I have heard in the Chamber
this morning. She sees the Reform members for what they are.
We transferred emergency funds to the provinces. The province of
Quebec for instance took $700 million and put it into a savings
account in the Toronto-Dominion Bank where it is collecting
interest right now. We transferred $1.3 billion to Ontario. Mike
Harris, the kissing cousin of the Reform Party, said that Ontario
would immediately spend every cent of that money. Ontario spent
$750 million of it and $556 million is still sitting in a savings
account.
What process would the hon. member see being put in place to
make the provinces spend the money the federal government
transfers to them for health care?
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's question. It is a good question as well.
We are not going to fall into the trap of beating up on the
provinces in order to divert attention and responsibility away
from the federal government. It seems to me that if we had a
genuine federal-provincial partnership, if we had a federal
government that had not lost credibility on medicare by opting
out of all the funds practically, down to 14%, then the provinces
would not be running for cover and doing whatever they wanted to
do. There would be a real partnership.
1250
It seems to me that the onus goes back to the government. It
must show that it has the leadership, initiative and political
will to create a kind of federalism where there is a partnership
with the provinces, where there is a buy-in with provincial
governments to use those funds for health care or education. I
would ask the member to answer his own question about the failure
of how those transfers take place.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am glad to see the member for Wild Rose in the House.
It is good to see him back after a bit of an absence. I saw him
starring in a television program a few weeks ago. I had not seen
him for a while.
I want to say a few words in the debate today. The Reform Party
motion says that the House calls on the Minister of Finance to
increase the Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion
and to forgo the $1.5 billion increase to federal grants,
services and contributions in this year's budget. On the surface
that may sound like a perfectly reasonable motion but I have a
couple of problems with it.
In looking at the grants and contributions that the Reform Party
wants to terminate, what it is advocating is robbing Peter to pay
Paul. I came across some very interesting programs that are
supported by the vast majority of Canadians.
For example, it wants to terminate the increase of $560,000 to
the first nations policing program. There are 12 first nations in
my riding. They are very interested in increased funding for
policing on those Indian reserves. I see the member for Wild Rose
hanging his head in shame. I know he agrees with me too because
he has first nations in his riding. Perhaps that is why he is
not speaking in this debate. The Reform Party wants to eliminate
this important program in terms of the funding increase in the
budget.
Also, the Reform Party wants to eliminate the increase of
$355,000 in the contribution to the Canadian blood service
program. Why would it want to terminate that? Why does it want
to decrease its budget by $355,000?
Another item the Reform Party wants to get rid of is the $12.3
million contribution in support of the youth justice renewal
fund. This is youth justice renewal for young offenders across
the country and it wants to decrease that by $12.3 million which
the Minister of Finance had in his budget.
There is another one. The Reform Party wants to eliminate as
well the $1.2 million contribution in support of the safer
communities initiative.
Why does the Reform Party want to decrease a lot of very good
government programs that are serving the people of this country
in order to put more money into health care? There is a huge
surplus. This country can afford not just the $1.5 billion it is
talking about but it can afford more than that in terms
increasing health care funds.
As a matter of fact, since the Liberal Party took power in 1993,
there has been a cutback of over $21 billion in total funding
from transfers to the provinces for health care and education.
Spending this year will be $3.3 billion lower than it was in 1993
when the Liberal Party was elected.
On the health side, the Reform Party is saying to go halfway
back to where the Liberals were in 1993 despite the fact that
government revenues have skyrocketed. We have a surplus in the
next five years of $100 billion plus and the Reform Party wants
to put back in only half the money which the Liberals took away
in 1993. It does not even factor in the inflationary costs in
the health care system.
This motion falls far short of what parliament should be
endorsing in terms of health care and what parliament should
endorse for public spending and expenditures for other government
programs across the board.
I look across the way at the Liberals and I wonder how the party
of Paul Martin, Sr., Lester Pearson and other social reformers
could support the present Minister of Finance and the Prime
Minister. They have cut back on social services and social
programs in a way that is so much more radical than what Brian
Mulroney and the Tories ever did.
1255
Hon. Jim Peterson: With pride.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: With pride, says the Secretary of
State for International Financial Institutions. He says with
pride government members support these cutbacks to the health
care system by the Minister of Finance.
I invite the minister to go to Regina, Kamsack, Moose Jaw and
many other places in Saskatchewan and say that he is proud of
these cutbacks, that he is proud of the consequences of the
cutbacks to health care. I can show him emergency rooms where
people are lined up, where people are on waiting lists for
surgery. Hospitals have closed because of the cutbacks in
federal spending. The minister across the way said the
government is doing that with pride and with pride it is cutting
back on transfers to the provinces.
I would like to see the minister get up in the question and
answer period in a few minutes and explain why he is so proud of
the cutbacks that are hurting people. Certainly that is not what
this parliament had decided many years ago in terms of spending
in this particular area. And he said it was done with pride.
The cutbacks are more draconian than what we saw with the Tories
under Brian Mulroney or previous Tory governments. One of the
consequences of these cutbacks will be the initiation of private,
two tier Americanized medicare. We are seeing that today in the
province of Alberta with Ralph Klein and Bill 11. One reason he
is doing it is because of the tremendous cutbacks by the federal
government. If it happens in Alberta, it will happen in Ontario
with Mike Harris. It will spread across the country because of
the cutbacks by the federal government in terms of transfers to
the provinces for health care.
The budget a few weeks ago had a $58 billion tax cut. Our party
is saying that some cuts in taxes are needed, but about 25% of
the government surplus should go into tax cuts and about 75% in
the program expenditures on behalf of ordinary people. The tax
cut should be the reduction of the GST.
I noticed at the Liberal convention a couple of days ago that
the ordinary delegates passed a motion to start cutting back on
the GST. Again the government is not listening in terms of its
tax cut package.
Most of the surplus should be going into government programs and
government spending, in particular into health care. We are
saying that over the next couple of years there should be an
increase in transfers of $5.5 billion that will eventually get us
up to the federal government sharing the spending on a 50:50
basis with the provinces in terms of health care.
When medicare was first introduced the federal government paid
50 cents on the dollar and the provinces paid 50 cents on the
dollar for health care. Today under a so-called Liberal
government, the federal government is paying some 13 cents or 14
cents in terms of cash transfers. In terms of cash transfers,
that is 13% or 14%. It is not just me who is saying that. Every
premier is saying it. The premiers are saying that we will need
a massive injection of federal money to save the health care
system.
We all know that health care is now the most important issue
facing the country. We all hear about it. Liberal delegates
were saying it the other day. The public opinion polls are
saying it. Even the Reform Party is getting on the bandwagon and
is talking about health care.
We will have to put some federal money into the system to save
health care in addition to what has been done already. We have
the money and the resources to do it. If we do not do it, we will
end up with a two tier system that will lead to the erosion and
the destruction of medicare and health care.
There are a lot of people advocating it. Just the other day the
Reform Party's finance critic said on CBC television that we
should be looking at some private sector solutions to health
care. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said a similar
thing in the press a few days ago. Ralph Klein is saying the
same thing in the province of Alberta. Here we have a party in
the movement that is now advocating two tier health care and it
is being aided and abetted by the federal government, which has
cut back massively in terms of transfers to the provinces for
health care and education.
1300
In my province of Saskatchewan alone over the next four years
under this budget there will only be an additional $80 million
going into health care from the federal government. That is
enough to keep our health care system going for three or four
days. That is one reason in our province, like any other
province, there is a great strain on the system. There have been
cutbacks in the services that should be provided. There are
waiting lists for surgery, lineups in emergency rooms and so on.
I appeal to the government to look very seriously at
substantially increasing transfers to the provinces for health
care and education.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would interpret from the
remarks of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle that he will not be
supporting the Reform motion, and I congratulate him for that.
He mentioned some of the programs that would be cut implicitly
by the motion that was presented by the Reform Party. I will
name a few, for those who are interested in what is in the
budget.
For example, there is an additional contribution of $900 million
for the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which helps
universities and research hospitals acquire the infrastructure
they need to help prepare our economy and to prepare Canadians
for the new world in which we live.
Another example is the $900 million which will go to fund
research chairs for new positions in universities and colleges so
that we can be at the leading edge of new technologies and
attract and keep the best and the brightest.
Another example is the $160 million for Genome Canada, which
will put us at the leading edge of the biotechnological thrust in
which Canada will have a very competitive position.
These are all grants and contributions. This is not some obtuse
theory. This is what is in the budget. This is what would be
cut if the Reform Party's motion went forward. I could go on and
on.
Another example is the $700 million for the environment, which
will be dealt with through grants and contributions so that we
will have clean air and clean water, and we will be able to
prepare ourselves to eliminate greenhouse gases and meet our
Kyoto commitments.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle talked about topping up the
CHST, which of course he knows is at an all-time high. In fact,
the federal contribution is around 32%. He mentioned reducing
the GST and topping up the CHST. Where would he find the money?
If he were to reduce the GST and top up the CHST, how would the
arithmetic work?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I guess it depends on
where one's priorities lie.
The member sits on the finance committee as well. The report of
the finance committee indicated that about a quarter of the
surplus should have been spent on tax reduction, namely, the
reduction of the GST. That is what our party recommended to the
Minister of Finance.
The government went a different way. It decided to reduce taxes
by $58 billion over five years, doing it in a number of ways:
through a reduction of corporate income taxes, a reduction in
personal income taxes, a change in the capital gains tax, whereby
we will have to pay tax on only two-thirds of the capital gains
as opposed to three-quarters, and through a number of other tax
measures and changes. We had a difference in philosophy in terms
of what taxes should be reduced.
I remind the member that a resolution was passed at the Liberal
convention stating that the GST should be reduced and gradually
eliminated. That is what our party is saying. However, for some
reason the Minister of Finance did not listen to that advice.
That is where we would get the money. We would get the money by
putting less money into tax reduction and more money into the
CHST. A tax reduction of $58 billion is going too far in terms
of a fair breakdown among reducing taxes, increasing government
spending on health and education and reducing the national debt.
The government is out of sync in terms of public opinion. We
are advocating getting rid of the GST, reducing it a point at a
time and putting more money into transfers to the provinces for
health and education. That is what most people want.
If I may add, that is why the Reform Party is so out of sync.
It is advocating cutting back many worthwhile government programs
and putting a smaller amount into transfers for the provinces and
health care and then opening up a system for the private sector,
in effect creating a two-tier health care system, or the
Americanization of our health care system, which is not the way
the Canadian people want to go, even in the province of Alberta.
I see that the member for Wild Rose wants to confirm that fact,
so I cede the floor to him.
1305
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am glad the hon. member missed me. I would hate to think that I
was gone and nobody missed me from this place. However, I do not
want him to get too encouraged by anything I might say because
there will be ice skating in Hades before I agree with anything
the member would have to say in terms of the policies of the
nation. All I have to do is look at the oblivion that British
Columbia and Ontario under Bob Rae and other NDP governments in
the past have suffered from the likes of this kind of thinking.
Instead of ranting on about what the Reform Party would do, why
does the member not speak out? Why does his party not speak out
on such films as Bubbles Galore, which was on CBC the other
night? The government is wasting millions and millions of
dollars on feely, touchy, fuzzy stuff that the NDP and Liberals
love to pieces. When are they going to speak out against that
kind of garbage?
It is confirmation of your stupidity. If you had any brains you
would not laugh, you idiot.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I will answer the
question. While the member was watching Bubbles Galore and
sipping champagne, I was studying the health care system. I did
not see the film. He was watching Bubbles Galore, but I was
not watching it, so I really cannot comment on the film.
Ms. Louise Hardy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Is there not something in the rules which says that we
should not be hollering derogatory names back and forth across
the floor? I do not think it helps us in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Even though the hon.
member does not really have a point of order, I would agree with
her that it would be much better if all remarks were addressed
through the Chair, rather than across the floor.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, after that
bit of dialogue I am really lost for words. I do not know how to
follow it. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Chicoutimi. I also want to say that the PC Party supports this
motion. I have heard a lot of comments from the NDP saying that
it does not support the motion. I wonder why NDP members do not
support the specifics of the motion put forward by the member for
Calgary—Nose Hill.
The motion states:
That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the
Canada Health and Social Transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the
$1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this
year's federal budget.
The reasoning behind that was because of the fiasco that is
going on in HRDC.
I do not think any responsible member of parliament would say
that the member for Calgary—Nose Hill or any other member who
supports this motion is cherry picking from HRDC or any other
area. This would be a general investment of $1.5 billion in the
CHST, which is needed because of government cutbacks. The motion
also proposes to hold back $1.5 billion from federal grants and
contributions. As every member of the House knows, HRDC has
proven that it is irresponsible and not able to control its
budget.
It is important to understand that this is not pointing to HRDC
offices in individual ridings.
This is not saying that there is not a lot of good work being
done by HRDC in individual ridings. The riding I represent,
South Shore, has an HRDC office in Bridgewater and another one in
Shelburne. Those offices do a lot of good work. They have
excellent people working in them. They have put forward some
good assistance to businesses in the South Shore riding and in
the province of Nova Scotia in general. However, there has been
a serious lack of leadership by the minister of HRDC, and the
previous minister I should add. There are 19 police
investigations ongoing, criminal investigations, and the Minister
of Finance and the Prime Minister decided when they brought the
budget down that they would reward the minister of HRDC. It is
mind-boggling. It is dumbfounding.
1310
Even hon. members of the NDP who spoke to this motion must find
it rather ludicrous that there is a department in turmoil and yet
its budget has been increased. The government said “Yes, we
know it is in trouble. We are going to give it more money to
waste”.
Let us be honest. It is not the regional offices; it is the
management, the top brass at HRDC. Those are the people who
allowed this to happen. Fifteen per cent of the 459 audited
grants did not even include an application form. Eleven per cent
did not include a budget proposal. Eleven per cent did not
contain any expected results. Twenty-five per cent did not say
for which type of activity the money would be used.
That money came out of our pockets and the pockets of our
constituents. That money came from the taxpayers of Canada and
we have an obligation, both as opposition members of parliament
and as government members, to make sure this money is spent
wisely.
I think we should be responsible. I think we should be
understanding. I think we should realize that everyone is not
perfect, that all departments are not perfect and that
individuals make mistakes, but we should also have a system of
checks and balances in place so that when those mistakes are made
they are corrected.
To add $1.5 billion to a $13 billion budget as a reward for
incompetence is inconceivable. It is an insult to the taxpayers
of Canada.
At the same time, the PC Party supports the existence of
programs designed to help young Canadians get their first job and
to help less fortunate people such as the handicapped enter the
job market. The TJF was put in place to help areas of high
unemployment in the regions that were hit very hard by reforms
made to employment insurance in 1996 by this government.
We support sensible programming. We support programs which are
formulated in such a way as to hit areas of high unemployment,
the people and the groups in society that are less fortunate and
those who have a more difficult time entering the job market.
This is not about standing and saying that everything in HRDC is
bad. It is not about saying that all HRDC regional offices are
bad. This is about understanding what has gone on in HRDC and
asking why, when we have a health care crisis and an education
crisis in this country, we would take $1.5 billion extra and put
it in HRDC when we need it desperately in the Canada health and
social transfer.
This is not a complex issue. Let us look at the Liberals'
reaction to it. The Prime Minister tried to minimize this huge
fiasco by saying in the House on February 9, 2000 that only
$251.50 caused problems.
That is a direct quote from the Prime Minister. I am still
waiting for the translation because I know I lost something in
the translation. I still have not figured it out, but this is
what the Prime Minister said and all the Liberal members on the
government side were nodding and agreeing that $251.51 caused
problems. It is just amazing.
1315
We are now aware that there are at least 19 police
investigations including three in the Prime Minister's own
riding. It is unforgivable that the Prime Minister and his
cabinet can stand and defend this type of government, this type
of policy, in a country where taxpayer dollars are being spent.
Last week the president of Canada Employment and Immigration
unionized employees of HRDC held a press conference on Parliament
Hill. He said that the governing party and the cuts of over
5,000 jobs at HRDC were to blame for the mess, and that political
influence caused expediency in the approval of the process of
grants and contributions.
For instance, the department accepted to talk to an unregistered
lobbyist, Mr. René Fugère, a good friend of the Prime Minister,
already under investigation by the RCMP. Grants were awarded to
the riding of the HRDC minister, even if her riding did not
qualify for the benefit grants under the TJF criteria.
Allegations are made of slush funds. We know several companies
that received grants gave large donations to the governing party.
Surely Canadians deserve the truth in all these allegations.
Surely even the government has to recognize the fact that this is
not its money, that this is the money of Canadians.
When Canadians have a question they deserve an answer. No
government in the history of the country has had 19 ongoing
criminal investigations at once. It has never happened before.
It has never happened before that we have had three criminal
investigations in the riding of the Prime Minister of Canada. It
is time that we got some solid answers. It is time that we saw
some responsibility.
I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi.
Obviously he will go into more detail on the Canada health and
social transfer aspect of the issue. Before I sit down I would
like some reaction from the government benches that they accept
responsibility for this fiasco, that they are the government, and
that the Prime Minister will stand some day to clear the issue in
the House of Commons.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, with respect, I think the
member for South Shore is somewhat confused about the motion.
Frankly I am not surprised because I was as confused earlier as
many other members of the House.
When I asked the member for Calgary—Nose Hill earlier in this
debate whether she would cut HRDC she responded by saying no and
indicating that there were other elements in the federal budget
under grants and contributions that should be cut. She
acknowledged that some of the work was of real benefit to
Canadians as they make the transition into the workforce.
I would like to point out what would really be cuts in grants
and contributions if we accepted the Reform Party motion. They
would cut $900 million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation.
They would cut $900 million for 2,000 research chairs in our
universities so we can have the best and brightest in Canada and
prepare Canadians for the economy of the future. They would also
cut $160 million to Genome Canada, a biotechnology institution
that is on the leading edge of research in this area. They would
also cut $700 million for environmental improvements so that we
could have cleaner air and cleaner water and could prepare
ourselves to reduce greenhouse gases.
I think the member for South Shore, knowing this, would realize
that there would be significant cuts in some very desirable
programs. Maybe he would like to reflect on this in his answer.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's statement. However I can only speak to the motion that
is before us.
There is none of that in the motion which I read at the beginning
of my speech. I will read it again:
That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the
Canada Health and Social Transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the
$1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this
year's federal budget.
1320
That is a general statement. That is not a specific statement.
I am specifically looking at HRDC. That is the $1.5 billion
increase. There is no other $1.5 billion increase in the federal
budget. It is specific to that department. It is not specific
to certain elements of that department. It is specific to the
general budget of that department.
The basis of my deliberations is that we have a department that
is out of control. The department should have but apparently has
not embarrassed the minister and the former minister responsible
for it. There are 19 ongoing police investigations, three of
which are in the Prime Minister's riding. We should not reward
incompetence. We should slap incompetence down and say “Clean
up your books and come back to us again. In the meantime we are
going to cut your budget. We are not going to increase it”.
That is not saying that there are not good programs within HRDC.
That is saying that we do not send good money after bad.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I enjoyed the intervention of the hon. member for South
Shore. When I listened to the babble from the member for
Etobicoke North I could not help but be struck by the fact that
in his selective choice of grants, which he said might be victims
of our motion, he did not make any mention of some of the
grantees who have been living off the public trough for most of
human memory in the country, people like SNC-Lavalin and
Bombardier. There was never a whisper about them.
In line with what the member for South Shore was saying, let us
get back specifically to HRDC grants. Perhaps he is unique,
outside our party in the House, in that he realizes we have been
getting a snow job from the minister of HRDC who says that all
the money that has been frittered away has been going to the
disadvantaged, the halt, the blind, the widows and the orphans.
It fair makes me weep, it does. Most of it has been going to the
disadvantaged politically, to the Liberal Party.
I would like the hon. member to comment on the question of other
grants outside HRDC to see if he might raise some other examples.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, specifically to the
statement by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, obviously
there are other areas in which the government has been deficient.
What I have been trying to deal with has strictly been HRDC.
There is chaos in the department. There is a meltdown in the
department. Someone needs to be responsible. That person is the
department head, the minister and the Prime Minister.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to a motion which, I think, manages to tie two issues
of great concern to Canadians, namely the numerous scandals at
Human Resources Development Canada and health care.
Regarding HRDC, in our ridings, everyone is talking about the
dozens of RCMP investigations which are under way.
This issue is about arbitrary political interference, about
numbered companies that received grants without ever delivering
the goods and about a government that, once again, is poised to
give, not $1,5 million, but $1,5 billion to the same department.
1325
This happens at a time when hospitals across the country—and our
regional hospital in particular—are overloaded. People have to go
outside the country for surgery. Who would have thought that,
seven years ago, when the Liberals took office?
It is strange to see what happened at the convention last
week-end. That convention was almost as popular in Quebec as “La
petite vie”, which is a very popular television program.
It was pitiful to see the Prime Minister calling on his friend
Paul to reply to questions such as those on the increase in
budgets at HRDC, where it is scandal after scandal.
It is not just Liberal MPs from Ontario who are in trouble.
They are perhaps quicker than others to take in what is going on
with the Prime Minister of Canada, with the Minister of Finance,
on major issues. It is not possible for these people to ignore
the fundamental needs of Canadians.
In its stupidity, the federal government prefers to create more
programs, rather than meet the needs of provinces. It is going
to stick its oar in with the millennium scholarships, but it is
common knowledge that the provinces are able to run these
sectors.
It is even going to interfere in health care, when there are
long waiting lists for operations.
Cancer patients face delays of two, four, five, six or eight
months, which is terrible for families and for the patients
themselves.
All the government can think to do is to keep the caucus on a
short leash and make no bones about it. How does one go about
getting rid of a Prime Minister who, not just in the case of
Human Resources Development Canada, but in the case of the
budget, is determined to interfere in all sectors of provincial
jurisdiction?
For his part, the Minister of Finance is irresponsible for
signing off on a budget that does not meet the real needs of
Canadians.
The Prime Minister says to the Minister of Finance “Paul, my
friend, put so many millions in this sector, $1.5 billion for
Human Resources Development Canada, so that we can continue our
political meddling, and arrange for $2 million for one, and
$1 million for another, and then we will collect during the next
election campaign”.
All Canadians, including those who are English speaking, are
beginning to see what this has produced, after 30 years of
provocation by former Prime Minister Trudeau and the current
Prime Minister. It has produced a country on the brink of
dissension.
The figures prove it: 15% in the 1970 referendum; 49.4% in the
last referendum. If there were referendums in Alberta and
British Columbia, I am not sure it would not be higher still.
The provocation must end.
The Minister of Finance has to stand up for himself and stop
saying “yes” to the Prime Minister all the time, preparing
budgets according to the political wishes and partisan desires
of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance cannot go on
through the coming months like the Prime Minister, because
Canadians are beginning to understand all that the government
has done, in addition to not having any timetable.
When we rise as Progressive Conservative members we are
immediately met with “You left the country with a deficit”.
That is a quick summary of the country's financial state. When
Pierre Elliott Trudeau arrived, there was no debt. It grew to
$18 billion in 1974 and to $284 billion later on. What counts in
economics is the multiplier. He multiplied it by 11. We
multiplied it by two. But we had a timetable.
We passed the free trade agreement.
They all voted against it. They almost defeated us on it.
1330
The GST, which will bring in $24 billion in revenues this year,
not to mention the free trade agreement, which is very lucrative
for the country, was not enough for the Minister of Finance.
What he likes to do is pocket the money, Canadians' money, which
he has arbitrarily decided to manage on our behalf. This is
what the Minister of Finance has done.
He has to stop hiding behind the Prime Minister and launch his
race for the leadership intimating that he performed miracles
for Canada. He did not perform miracles, the previous
government did by passing lucrative measures for the current
government. But that was not enough for them.
Employment insurance yileds an annual surplus of $7 billion paid
for by the workers. What Canadians want and what hopefully all
opposition parties will propose in the next elections, is to
give people their money back instead of creating new programs
whose only objective is to give visibility to the Prime Minister
and to the Minister of Finance, both of whom spent the week-end
grandstanding here in Ottawa.
People want money in their pockets. It is the only way to fight
poverty. Right now, the government is not fighting poverty, it
is fighting the poor. Canadians have had more than enough of a
government that spends most of its time quarrelling with the
provinces.
In Quebec, we have been putting up with that for 30 years from
the former Prime Minister and the current one. All those
quarrels lead nowhere.
Quebecers, like Albertans and all the others, from the maritimes
and elsewhere, want peace and quiet and want to see the money
back in their pockets when the government does not need it. This
year, revenue from the GST will be $24 billion, the surplus the
EI fund will be $7 billion and there will be further tax hikes,
the 50th tax increase in seven years.
The government claims that it has been a good government, that
it has honourably replaced the last Progressive Conservative
government. I am ready to take all the Liberals on, based on our
performance after nine years in power compared to theirs after
seven years. We will look at the numbers and see which
government was the best one, which one made the best choices.
Give me any item on the government's agenda.
At a time when Quebecers wanted constitutional peace, as did all
Canadians, the wondrous Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
with his obsession for the constitution—nothing else but that
interests him—found a means for getting a bill passed for the
sole purpose of disgusting everybody in Quebec and showing the
rest of the country “Here we are teaching the Quebecers a
lesson, here we are putting them in their place”.
I have some news for them. Fortunately, the government is going
to change, maybe even this fall, because if it does not I can
promise there will be a referendum in a few years. And the key
argument of a very strong majority of Quebecers will be that
bill of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Bill C-20,
which does not even respect international standards as far as
democracy is concerned.
They will get a referendum and then some.
They are the ones responsible for the change in the outcome from
20% to 49.4%. They will be responsible for raising it from the
49.4% of 1995 to perhaps 65% in 2003 or 2004.
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I do not know
whether the hon. member is a Progressive Conservative or a Bloc
Quebecois member, because he has reached the stage of promising
us referendums. I have some good issues of conscience to raise
with him.
He has referred to the HRDC scandal. I would like to remind him
that the consent of the provinces is involved. Yesterday's La
Presse quoted Mr. Pinard, the Deputy Speaker of the National
Assembly, as saying that the Prime Minister was doing excellent
work and was working on behalf of the people of Shawinigan.
I believe the hon. member ought instead to be congratulating us
for bringing the unemployment rate down from 11.4% to 6.8%.
He says that he is going to give us figures comparing what was
done during their mandate and during ours.
I would just like to remind him of a few such figures: their 3%
and 5% surtax to eliminate the deficit, which we took out in our
budget three years ago, their non-indexation of tax tables, to
try to fight the deficit.
1335
If he wants figures, we will give him some.
We have reduced the debt to $573 billion. We have eliminated the
deficit. Do they talk about the $42 billion deficit that we have
eliminated? We have generally reduced taxes by 15%. There were
no tax cuts when the Conservative were in power. There were tax
increases. That is what they managed to do.
There was also an increase in unemployment, whereas under our
government the unemployment rate has gone down to 6.8%. Those
are eloquent figures.
In order to give a break to families, we cancelled the 3% and 5%
surtax they slapped on to help eliminate the deficit. In
2000-2001, the transfer payments will reach an absolute high,
contrary to what a Bloc member stated this morning when he said
it was a shame.
With the transfer of tax points that provinces want us to
increase, the transfers will reach a record high. The
Conservatives never did anything of the kind.
The Quebec finance minister said it was not a matter of money
but rather a matter of management. I would have liked to hear
Bloc members tell us what Quebec has done with the $841 million
kept in trust when people had to go to the United States to get
health care because of a lack of money.
They talk about referendums. The hon. member mentioned the
figure of 49%, yet we know that 25% of those who voted yes
believed Quebec would stay within Canada.
This is a Conservative saying this and promising another
referendum? I seriously wonder if he should not change seat and
go sit with the Bloc.
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Speaker, I have a few remarks for my
colleague.
We are not the ones talking about referendums. For weeks, the
government has been talking about a possible referendum. Who
brought Bill C-20 before the House in order to lock up Quebec
inside Canada? Not a single people can stand being in prison. A
real confederation should be a partnership.
I must tell him that, with a bill such as the one that was
passed by the House, we run the risk of having another
referendum because of all this provocation.
The hon. member talked about the unemployment rate. The
government has a $7 billion surplus, but people are not eligible
for employment insurance any more. The eligibility rate has
dropped from 75% or 80% to a mere 40%. We need not wonder why
poverty has reached such a high level in Canada.
In the seven years since the Liberals took office, poverty in
families and child poverty have gone up 50%. This abysmal result
has been confirmed by the United Nations. I find that
deplorable.
I want to remind the hon. member that I was elected as a member
of the Progressive Conservative Party, and its basic principle
is that we should work for national reconciliation. When the
Meech Lake accord was passed, 92% of Canadians agreed. They are
not the ones who scrapped it. It took only four or five vicious
Liberals who look after their party's interests first instead of
those of this country.
[English]
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will
be sharing my time with the hon. member for Red Deer.
It gives me pleasure to rise today and speak to this Reform
Party motion. I congratulate the member for Calgary—Nose Hill
for her hard work on this file and for bringing it to the
attention of the House.
I will first speak about the need for increased health and
social transfers to the provinces. Our health care system is on
life support. Every day we hear more stories of patients waiting
for days in clogged emergency rooms, nurses at the breaking point
and physicians burned out trying to meet the needs of their
patients and ever lengthening waiting lists. At the centre of
all this is a person who falls ill and pays for the decay in our
system with their pain and their suffering.
When the Liberal government assumed power in 1993 it promised to
maintain a high level of health care spending for all Canadians.
However, the reality is quite different. Since it came to power,
the CHS transfer has dropped 28%, ripping a cumulative $21
billion out of transfer payments to the provinces. This slash
and burn approach has left a devastated health care system in its
wake.
1340
The Canada Health Act, which has five principles that govern
health care in Canada, is being violated every day across the
country. However, every time someone tries to point out this
painfully obvious fact, and I say painfully because people are
suffering and even dying because of these failures, they are
immediately labelled as an enemy of medicare. Immediately hot
button words like two tier and American style are thrown out with
no regard to the merit of the argument.
The government likes to wrap itself in the act, claiming to be
the white knight of medicare, defending the health of Canadians
despite the fact that the act is no longer capable of doing what
it was originally intended to do.
The first principle, portability, implies that when citizens
travel from one province to the other they will be covered in the
same manner as in their home province. This is not true, as each
province covers different services.
The second principle, that of public administration, states that
the health care system will be publicly funded and administered.
The fact is that while the feds and the provinces initially split
the bill for health care equally, today the federal government
contributes only 11% of the total in health care spending.
The third principle, universality, which means that everybody is
covered for health care needs, is simply untrue. Those who
cannot pay their premiums are not covered. Those who cannot
afford fees for physiotherapy, chiropractic work, prosthesis and
other services do without.
The fourth principle, accessibility, which means that an ill
person receives care when they need it, is the most important
principle of the Canada Health Act that is being violated. Last
year 212,000 people were on waiting lists, an increase of 13%
from the year before. Compounding this is the fact that people
are waiting longer. The government is rationing people's health
care and under these circumstances it is the poor and middle
class who are getting their health care withheld, for the rich
can always go south of the border, or often have connections to
jump the queue.
The fifth principle, comprehensiveness, means that necessary
services must be covered. However, this is not true considering
that home care, many drugs, optical and dental services and many
others are not completely covered.
Despite these obvious flaws in our health care system, we have a
government that champions the status quo, a position that has
taken us into this crisis and one that offers no way out.
Throwing more money at a broken system does not help. The extra
$2.5 billion that was announced in the 2000 budget, money that
will be allocated in the next four years, is like offering a
band-aid to a trauma victim. It will not get the job done. What
we need is a fundamental shift in how we approach health care in
the 21st century. While that shift is being created, we need to
maintain what we have and the money that is being put forward is
not doing the job.
It is against this backdrop of crumbling federal support for
health care that Canadians are learning about the disastrous
mismanagement of hundreds of millions of tax dollars in the human
resources development department.
On January 19, 2000 an audit was released entitled “Program
Integrity: Grants and Contributions” two days after a Reform
Party access to information request for the audit was submitted.
That audit revealed the following: Of the 459 project files
reviewed, 15% did not have an application on file from the
sponsor. On the remaining applications the following elements
were missing: 72% had no cashflow forecast; 46% had no estimate
of the number of participants; 25% had no description of the
activities to be supported; 25% provided no description at all of
the characteristics of the participants; 11% had no budget
proposal; 11% had no description of expected results; and 97% of
all files reviewed showed no evidence that anyone had checked to
see if the recipient already owed money to HRDC. Eight out of 10
files reviewed did not show evidence of financial monitoring and
87% of project files showed no evidence of supervision.
Here are some examples of where the money went. Videotron
Telecom of Montreal is worth $6 billion but received $2.5 million
from the transitional jobs fund grant a month after the 1997
election. At the end of its contract, it had not claimed
$550,000 of the money so HRDC simply sent them a cheque.
American based RMH Teleservices was enticed to the minister's
riding using $1.6 million in HRDC grants over the protests of the
neighbouring Liberal ridings. Later, RMH executive
vice-president, Michael Sharff, said in an interview that they
would have located there without it. He said “I'm sure we would
be in Brantford one way or another. That was kind of like icing
on the cake”.
1345
The Canadian Aerospace Group in Nipissing, Ontario, received
$917,000 of a $1.3 million TJF grant before going bankrupt
without building any aircraft. Then the company moved to St.
Hubert, Quebec, and was approved for another $1.65 million loan
from Quebec's Federal Regional Development Agency, Canada
economic development for Quebec regions. No money has been paid
yet. The RCMP is investigating. The list goes on.
What is there to show for it? At least 19 police
investigations, those we know about, a handful of jobs and a
fountain in the Prime Minister's riding. Incidentally that
riding received more grant money than the provinces of Alberta,
Saskatchewan or Manitoba. Sadly the Prime Minister sees nothing
wrong with them, saying that he is only doing his job as a good
MP, despite the fact that three of the RCMP investigations are in
his riding. I am sure it is no coincidence that many of the
beneficiaries of this largesse are also generous contributors to
the Liberal Party.
The official opposition believes that Canadians would rather see
this money spent on improving the quality of health care than on
lining the pockets of the Prime Minister's friends. That is why
we are calling on the government to forgo the $1.5 billion
increase contained in this year's budget for federal grants and
contributions. We believe that this funding is better spent
upgrading the quality of health care. We are deeply concerned
about the future of health care in Canada. No one wants to see
people suffer when they fall ill. No one wants an American style
health care system in Canada.
We believe that health care should not be based on financial
status. All Canadians should have timely access to essential
health care services. When we form the government we will
provide greater freedom of choice when it comes to ensuring their
well-being and their access to the best medical care and
facilities. We believe the needs of patients must come first in
the delivery of health services. We will work co-operatively
with the provinces so that they have the resources and
flexibility to find more effective approaches to the financing,
management and delivery of health care, thereby ensuring that the
choice of patients in quality of care is maximized.
We can no longer afford to be complacent. We must find the best
solutions and implement them. Time is of the essence. The
longer we delay, the more people will suffer. Good solutions
exist. All we need is the courage to implement them.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with great
interest, particularly with regard to the transfer payments.
My understanding is that the federal government is putting $3.3
billion less into the system than was in the system in 1993-94.
This is the year 2000. When we factor in inflation we are
looking at a great lack of funding from the federal government to
the provinces, particularly when the provinces signed on to these
programs with the complete understanding that it would be a 50:50
cost sharing.
The hon. member also spoke of pain and suffering, and I have a
question for him. To my way of thinking, one of the darkest
pages in the history of the medical profession in Canada was how
this so-called caring and sharing Liberal government treated
hepatitis C victims. These people absolutely believed in the
system. They were told that it was fail-safe. They bought into
it and went in for blood transfusions. After the fact they found
out that they had tainted blood. Some are suffering with kidney
failure and some are literally dying. Yet the government has
only seen fit to pay the lawyers in these cases. It has not put
one dime toward the victims.
Is this the hon. member's idea of what people would think of as
a Liberal “we care, we will help you” attitude toward innocent
victims in the medical system?
Mr. Rick Casson: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question. One of the most memorable moments in my time in
the House was the day when we voted on compensation for hepatitis
C victims. That was probably my first real idea of how much
power was in the front row of the government.
We saw backbench government members stand to vote against the
motion to compensate all victims. To the credit of one member
who was very emotional, she had worked very hard for these people
but had to vote against her beliefs and the wishes of her
constituents.
1350
I have received quite a few letters, as I am sure have all
members of the House, from constituents about this issue. I would
like to read a couple of them. This one comes from a constituent
in Coalhurst, Alberta. It is addressed to the Liberal members of
the Government of Canada, with a copy to me, and states:
This letter is to inform you of my disgust at the Liberals in the
Federal Government. Their handling of the tax money of this
country is a disgrace.
It is my opinion that there are several people that should be
relieved of their positions because of their ineptness...Is there
no accountability to the people that have put you in office?
Please stop the policy...of using tax dollars as a slush fund for
political patronage.
Another letter was to the Prime Minister with a copy to myself.
It comes from a constituent in Lethbridge and states:
As a taxpayer, I find the reports about the way the HRDC has
been handing out our money, very disturbing for two main reasons.
The first is the apparent lack of proper management of the vast
funds of taxpayers money being handed out—There are many who
believe that the minister should resign. The hon. minister
should be held accountable for the apparent poor management
practices of HRDC. However, she may have done taxpayers a big
favour by bringing to the attention of the entire country the
casual and lax ways that millions of our tax dollars are spent.
It was the member from Nose Hill who brought it to the attention
of the country. The letter states further:
But more importantly this affair, as well as the attempt to give
millions to millionaire hockey teams, has clearly pointed out to
the taxpaying public that the government is collecting more money
than it can spend in useful ways.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to speak to the subject of transfers and in particular
the transfers to health care.
I was in my riding this weekend. I am sure many members, at
least on our side of the House, go back to their ridings to talk
to their constituents and are told to fix that grant situation in
Ottawa; to fix that waste, that boondoggle that has been going on
in Ottawa; and to fix the fact that the Prime Minister's riding
gets $7 million while the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan
each get around $5 million and Alberta gets $3 million, 73% of
which goes to the justice minister's riding in Alberta. That is
not what they want their tax dollars used on.
The Liberals seem to take the tax and then think it is their
money to distribute as they see fit. Their tax and spend
philosophy is just not acceptable. Our critic is proposing in
today's motion that the grants for HRDC and the like be frozen
and that the grants to health care be increased, which is the
second thing people are telling us about.
Between 1993 and the proposed 2004 budget there will be a $35
billion cut in transfers for health care. People care about
that. Yes, people want reduced taxes, but they also want good
first class health care. The government needs to get the message
that people want to choose what to do with their money, that they
want government to stay out of their business, and that they want
government to stop playing politics with the grants it so readily
hands out.
Basically we heard the Prime Minister say this weekend that he
will be the defender of medicare. What we are really talking
about is a socialized, state run 1960s form of health care. It
is not sustainable. The status quo is not an option, which the
health minister has said many times.
It is the Liberals who are breaking the Canada Health Act. It
is the Liberals who are creating a multi-tier health care system.
It is the Liberals who are using the Canada Health Act as a
hammer against the provinces like some tinpot dictator would do
in the treatment of lesser states.
1355
The Prime Minister promises to maintain medicare as it is today.
I do not think many Canadians want the Prime Minister to maintain
what we have today. We must also remember that it is governments
like this one that have created a $580 billion debt with a $40
billion plus interest payment. We put $15 billion into health
care and we put $43 billion into interest payments. What is
hurting our health care system more than that sort of debt, and
who is responsible for it?
Let me repeat that the Prime Minister is saying he wants to
maintain a 1960s socialized, state run health care system. North
Korea and Cuba along with us can claim to have that sort of a
system. Other countries have modernized their health care
systems. They have done things to make them better, and I will
mention some them.
We are now rated 23rd of 29 countries in the OECD when it comes
to health care. We are in the bottom third of industrialized
countries when it comes to health care. If some members who are
heckling across the way today would ask their constituents what
they think about their health care, I am sure that is the answer
they would get as well.
It is the Liberals who have destroyed our health care system.
They are the ones who are not living by the Canada Health Act. It
is not an accessible system. There are waiting lists a mile
long. To get to see a specialist one might wait three or four
months. That is not accessible. Queue jumping is going on.
Whether it it legitimate like the WCB or whether it is
politicians, at least politicians from the other side, queue
jumping is going on.
It is not portable. I have talked with a number of doctors who
have said that they want money upfront, particularly if patients
come from provinces such as Quebec. It is not fair to those
people to be treated that way. It is the Liberals who are
destroying and not obeying the Canada Health Act. Last year 76
items were delisted from health care. That is not comprehensive
and that is not acceptable to Canadians. It is not universal.
The Speaker: Order, please. The member will have four
minutes left in his speech and will have the floor when we
return. It being almost 2 p.m. we will now proceed to Statements
by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
PRINCESS PATRICIA'S CANADIAN LIGHT INFANTRY
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 17 the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
celebrated the birthday of the first Princess Patricia who was
born in 1886.
Raised in 1914, this distinguished regiment has provided
outstanding service for the past 86 years. During the Great War,
the Patricia's fought valiantly on Europe's battlefields. For
their efforts they were awarded three Victoria Crosses.
During the Second World War they won deep respect from Allies
and enemies alike for their tenacity in battle.
In 1950 the Second Battalion of the Princess Patricia's was the
first Canadian infantry unit to arrive in Korea. Its
extraordinary courage at the battle of Kapyong won it the
distinct honour of a U.S. Presidential Unit Citation.
The Patricia's have distinguished themselves in the Medak Pocket
and in other UN peacekeeping operations in both
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.
On behalf of all Canadians I wish to praise the Princess
Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry for its years of outstanding
service.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government is a fractured and fighting party. It
cannot agree on who its leader is or should be, any more than it
can agree on what its defence policy should be.
Last weekend's high comedy convention is reflected in the
ongoing dispute between the Minister of National Defence and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs who cannot seem to develop a coherent
and consistent policy between them.
The foreign affairs minister's ill timed, immature and
irrational attacks on the United States national missile defence
system are a case in point.
1400
While Canadian military planners recognize the need, indeed the
necessity, of Canadian participation in this defence system, the
foreign affairs minister continues to talk about star wars and
American aggression all the while alienating and angering our
closest ally. How can one man stand in the way of a defence
system that is essential to North American security?
It is time for Canada to endorse the national missile defence
system.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the
opportunity along with my colleague the member for Essex to
welcome Mr. Nick Parsons to Parliament Hill this morning.
Mr. Parsons, a grain farmer, drove his combine all the way from
Peace River to outline to the public and the government the
devastating farm crisis affecting many farm families and their
communities across the country.
His journey was not easy but it signifies the spirit and
determination for better farm policies for all farmers across
Canada. His journey signifies a historic moment in terms of farm
policy politics in which farmers from across Canada have
travelled across many areas of the country, have demonstrated
publicly for better farm policies and his—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies.
* * *
[Translation]
JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on March 20, 1970, officials from 21 countries,
including Canada, signed in Niamey, Niger, the treaty
establishing the first intergovernmental organization for the
Francophonie. Special ceremonies will take place this year in
Niamey to mark the 30th anniversary of this event. Since 1988,
March 20 has been the Journée internationale de la Francophonie.
Canada will mark the anniversary this afternoon at the Canadian
Museum of Civilization.
The Prix de la Francophonie and decorations for the Ordre de la
Pléiade will be awarded on that occasion.
Being part of the Francophonie gives Canadians more
opportunities to thrive at the international level in the areas
of language, culture, politics, economy, new technologies,
co-operation and trade.
I wish everyone a very good Journée internationale de la
Francophonie.
* * *
[English]
STRATFORD FESTIVAL
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is once again my pleasure to rise in the House to
announce with great enthusiasm that the Stratford Festival
Theatre will be opening its 2000 season on May 3.
As many will know, the festival is renowned the world over for
its theatrical productions. This year will be no different. Its
playbill looks more like a study of the classics. Shakespeare's
Hamlet and Titus Andronicus, Alexandre Dumas' The
Three Musketeers, Molière's Le Tartuffe and Oscar
Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest are just a few of
the plays the festival will be performing this season.
To facilitate participation, my office will provide every member
with a 2000 festival brochure. I strongly encourage everyone to
come along and join the celebrations.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today is the first day of spring.
It was not too long ago, about three weeks ago, that the
minister of agriculture promised there would be $300 million
available for prairie farmers to help them through the spring
seeding. So far we do not even know how it will be distributed,
who will get it, what the terms of reference will be, nothing. It
sounds like another AIDA program with the money laying on the
table and the farmers reaching out trying to get it and having it
pulled away from under their noses.
I wonder when the minister of agriculture will get his act
together and instead of having photo ops will actually come out
and show the farmers that he does intend to do something. When
will he show some respect for people like Nick Parsons who
brought his combine up to the front of the parliament buildings
today to try to get the attention of the government and let it
know what is going on?
* * *
MICHAEL STARR
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I wish
to recognize the contribution to the city of Oshawa by one of my
predecessors, Colonel, the Hon. Michael Starr, who passed away on
Thursday.
Mike was extremely proud of his heritage, just as Oshawa's
sizeable Ukrainian population was proud of their Mike.
1405
Michael Starr was elected as an alderman in 1944 and then mayor.
Mike was the mayor of Oshawa until 1952 when he won an election
as a Conservative member of parliament. In 1957 Michael Starr
was named Minister of Labour. This appointment made Mike the
first Canadian of Ukrainian descent to be appointed to the
federal cabinet. In 1957 Mike was named Ukrainian of the Year
for North America. He was appointed as a citizenship court judge
and served on several important provincial boards. He also
served as honorary colonel of the Ontario Regiment.
Michael Starr's name is remembered on a provincial government
building in Oshawa and also by his contributions to Oshawa and
his country. He will not be forgotten.
Thank you Mike. See ya around.
* * *
[Translation]
JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Journée
internationale de la Francophonie, which we are celebrating
today, is of particular importance this year.
On March 20, 1970, three great statesmen, Léopold Senghor, Habib
Bourguiba and Hamani Diori, along with officials from 21 states
and governments having in common their use of French, created
what was to become the Agence internationale de la Francophonie.
Thirty years later, the states and governments of the
Francophonie are meeting again in Niamey, to mark this
anniversary, at the invitation of the Secretary General of the
Francophonie, Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
The fact that membership grew from 21 participants in 1970 to 55
in 2000 reflects the vitality of the French language around the
world. Quebec will soon be a member of that group, as a country.
* * *
[English]
UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary
Association I would like to indicate to the House that members of
the British delegation are visiting with us today to learn more
about how Canadian parliamentarians carry out their
responsibilities both here in Ottawa and in their constituencies.
I am pleased to note that the delegation is headed by the
Baroness Pitkeathley of Caversham. Also present are Keith Ernest
Darvill of Upminster; Christopher Leslie of Shipley; Maria Eagle
of Liverpool-Garston; John Bercow of Buckingham; Gerald Howarth
of Aldershot; the Rt. Hon. Eric Forth of Bromley-Chislehurst; and
Andrew George of St. Ives.
It is a pleasure to have them here with us today.
* * *
TAIWAN
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on Saturday the people of Taiwan made a historic
decision, electing former dissident human rights activist and
Taipei mayor Chen Shui-bian as their president. This decisive
victory by the leader of the once outlawed Democratic Progressive
Party is a milestone in the courageous struggle for democracy of
the Taiwanese people. It is a clear rejection of the bullying and
threats of the mainland Chinese government. The people of Taiwan
must be allowed to freely choose their own future, including
independence.
[Translation]
Throughout our country, Canadians of Taiwanese origin applaud
the election of the first president truly of Taiwanese origin,
and that of Annette Lu, the first woman to become vice-president
of that country.
Today, I join democrats of all types and from all over the world
in demanding that the Chinese government respect the democratic
and peaceful wish expressed by the people of Taiwan during this
historic election.
[English]
Let us now hope that democracy and respect for human rights will
come to mainland China as well.
* * *
MOZAMBIQUE
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this evening in Room 253-D Centre Block a very special
reception will take place to support flood relief efforts in
Mozambique.
For several weeks now, floods in Mozambique have brought
enormous suffering to its people. Mozambicans continue to be
without adequate clean water, food and shelter despite assistance
from Canada and the international community. The situation
worsens by the day since many lives are threatened by the
outbreak of diseases and the dislodgement of thousands of land
mines. The floods have seriously jeopardized Mozambique's ability
to feed its people.
I urge all my colleagues to attend the reception this evening
and give their support to the flood victims in Mozambique. It is
in Room 253-D Centre Block.
* * *
[Translation]
ALCAN'S JOB SHARING PROGRAM
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, with all the
scandals at Human Resources Development Canada, the minister has
an opportunity to do something constructive in the case of
Alcan's job sharing program—Solidarité pour la création
d'emplois.
In 1995, in co-operation with the federal government, Alcan
employees, the Government of Quebec and the company decided to
create a job sharing program.
1410
Arbitrarily, after three years, the federal government pulled
out, leaving hundreds of jobs in jeopardy.
I beg the minister to review this file objectively. There is
much talk of partnership, which I think is one of the most
promising avenues for the future, particularly in the outlying
regions, where it is difficult to create jobs.
I hope that the minister will show her good faith and that,
despite all the scandals, she will be able to do something
concrete to help workers in isolated areas.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Nick
Parsons ended his 4,800 kilometre odyssey today as he eased
his 10 tonne Massey-Ferguson combine to a stop in front of the
centennial flame on Parliament Hill. What a beautiful sight it
was.
For six weeks Nick navigated the Prairie Belle through the small
towns and mega-cities of Canada, determined to bring attention to
the farm income crisis that has crippled Canadian farmers.
For six weeks he drove, receiving the support of thousands of
Canadians along the way. But if it were up to the government,
Nick may as well have stayed home. The one man he wanted to talk
to, the one man who could make a difference, the Prime Minister,
has denied his request for a meeting.
The government has failed producers. Instead of immediately
delivering emergency assistance, the Prime Minister makes
promises of money that will never make it to the farm gate.
Canadian farmers, like Nick, need more than empty promises.
They need a meaningful commitment from the government. Mr. Prime
Minister, the message is simple: If you do not support
agriculture, quit eating.
* * *
[Translation]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 8, the government announced that the RCMP would be keeping
all its detachments in Quebec open.
I wish to tell RCMP authorities how satisfied I am with this
decision.
It confirms the RCMP's determination to maintain quality
services, but we already knew that. The important thing is that
the RCMP is adapting its services in order to give officers more
flexibility so that they can better wage their fight against
crime.
The decision also confirms the RCMP's desire to pursue its
partnerships with other police forces in order to carry out the
very difficult work of gathering and analysing data in the
regions.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the RCMP
and thank it for its excellent partnership with the Sûreté du
Québec, in particular in Opération Cisaille to eradicate the
cultivation of marijuana by organized crime.
All the stakeholders in the region—it is my region also—including
farmers, the UPA and members of all political parties recognize
how valuable and effective this co-operation is.
* * *
LEADER OF BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
the leader of the Bloc Quebecois will be made chevalier de
l'Ordre de la Pléiade, a distinction awarded by the Assemblée
parlementaire de la francophonie.
The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is the living incarnation
of modern Quebec francophonie. He has always been an staunch
promoter of the public use of French in Quebec, in Canada and in
the world.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois reconciles in a completely natural manner
his Irish origins and the French language, and is equally at
home with the green of Ireland and the French language.
With his passion for history, he is well aware of the path
French has taken in North America over the past centuries, and
of the obstacles it has encountered.
This is why he shows no hesitation in challenging preconceived
ideas on language and on other issues crucial to the Quebec of
today.
He knows that French as a language of culture, of science and of
commerce constitutes the cement of Quebec society, a society
that is more open, stronger, more vigorous than ever.
Bravo to the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, leader of the
Bloc Quebecois, for this well-deserved award, which reflects
glory on all of Quebec.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA CONVENTION
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
past weekend, Liberal activists sent Canadians a clear message.
They proposed and voted on resolutions aimed at a future
electoral platform responding to the aspirations of the
population.
Our party membership wishes to see their government pursue its
agenda as far as health, the economy, and the bolstering of
Canadian unity is concerned.
When Liberal activists call upon their government to invest in
infrastructures, their focus is on regional development, and
rightly so. When Liberal activists call upon their government
to invest in health, their focus is on improving the quality of
life of the Canadian population, and rightly so.
I am proud to belong to a political party with the well-being of
the people of Canada at heart, a party whose ultimate aim is
greater equity for all.
* * *
JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today we
celebrate a special holiday in Canada and around the world, that
of the Francophonie, a celebration of pride and cultural
identity.
The declaration of a Journée internationale de la Francophonie,
I think, points out the uniqueness of the language and the
dynamism of the culture in all areas of international endeavour.
1415
As a francophone, I invite Canada's francophones to show their
pride and host communities to show their respect, thus
underscoring this country's cultural diversity.
Long life to the Francophonie and a good day to all of Canada's
francophones.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to the gross mismanagement of taxpayer
dollars, the human resources scandal is just the tip of an
iceberg.
Another government agency, the Export Development Corporation,
has outstanding loans amounting to $22 billion, of which about
$2.8 billion has apparently been written off as lost. That is
three times the amount bungled by the human resources department,
and because EDC is even less accountable for taxpayers' money
than the other government agencies, the total may well be higher.
What is the total amount of taxpayer dollars that has been lost
on bad loans by the Export Development Corporation?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition leader for his
very interesting question. I inform the House that over the last
50 years, all in all, the Canadian government has granted about
$1 billion to the EDC for its equity fund. The rest is money it
makes on loans on the market. Therefore, it cannot be more than
$1 billion over 50 years.
Over the years the EDC, a very well run institution, has
actually made profits year after year.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Only $1 billion, Mr. Speaker. Another minister got into a great
deal of trouble for saying something like that about 30 years
ago.
When the EDC writes off bad loans, the taxpayers end up on the
hook, and taxpayers have no way of even tracking where or how
these bad loans were incurred. EDC is exempt from federal access
to information laws and all the standard accounting practices
that we expect from the government departments.
Again, we are asking the minister to give a straight answer to
the question. How many taxpayer dollars have been lost by EDC on
bad loans?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition leader has not
quite understood the answer. I just informed him that EDC does
not operate on taxpayer money. Over the last 50 years it has
received $1 bill for its equity fund.
As for its management, I would like to read the auditor
general's 1998 report in which he said that in his opinion:
—the transactions of the corporation have in all significant
respects been in accordance with the (...) Financial
Administration Act and regulations, with the EDC Act, and the
bylaws of the corporation.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, $2.8 billion in bad loans is almost three times the
billion dollars bungled by human resources. Many of the same
ingredients that infect the mismanagement of taxpayer money by
human resources are found in the minister's department.
Key EDC decision makers have close links to the Prime Minister.
The chairman of the EDC is a long time Liberal ally of the Prime
Minister. Large subsidies went to some of the largest
contributors to the Liberal Party and billions of dollars are
lost.
If the government has nothing to hide, why does it not lift the
cloud of secrecy that surrounds EDC?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat this slowly so that
everyone in the House will clearly understand.
In the last 50 years the government has invested only $1 billion
in EDC, which represents its equity fund. That $1 billion is
still there and it has helped support over $300 billion in
Canadian exports around the world.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is not encouraging for the minister who came over from HRDC,
and I am sure he is familiar with some of the stuff there.
The government subsidized Amtrak, an American train company, to
the tune of $1 billion. At the same time it was slashing
billions of dollars out of our health care system.
Does the minister really think that Canadians are willing to
give their money to subsidize Amtrak?
1420
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not long ago the Reform Party wasted a
whole question period because its research office had done poor
work. I can tell the House now that it does not even trust its
own research office and now looks to the papers for research. It
is relying on an article last Saturday that had more than 25
mistakes in it. It should do better research than that.
What everyone has to understand is that EDC does not grant any
subsidies. It therefore did not grant any subsidy to Amtrak
either.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when backing a loan we know, if the loan goes sour, exactly who
is on the hook to pay the bill.
While health care in our country has been derailed, this
government has pumped a billion dollars into a foreign railway.
The Prime Minister blabs on about the fact that he will protect
Canada but—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton
North.
Miss Deborah Grey: The Prime Minister talks about values
and sharing. He brags that he will protect Canada from
Americanization. That is nonsense.
How is it that this Prime Minister values sharing Canadian money
so much with American companies?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the EDC always loans money to foreign
clients who want to purchase goods from Canadian companies. That
is the nature of the corporation. It actually makes money for
the Canadian people. It made $118 million just last year. That
corporation does very good work. Ninety per cent of its clients
are small and medium sized Canadian enterprises that are trying
to export more. Canadians are very pleased with all the jobs
that have been created that way.
* * *
[Translation]
COUNCIL FOR CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Council for Canadian Unity was commissioned to organize 1,500
internships at a cost of $5,500 each.
According to the figures from Human Resources Development
Canada, the internships each cost $18,500, or three times the
original projection.
I would ask the Minister of Finance, who looks after Canada's
financial situation, among other things, to explain this
discrepancy.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Council
for Canadian Unity runs a very good program called “Experience
Canada”. Between 1996 and 1999 it helped almost 500 young
people gain valuable career related experience. It has an 83%
success rate. We all know why the Bloc Quebecois is not
particularly happy with this program.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
young Quebecers to meet young Canadians or young people from
other countries, we think this is a very good thing.
However, the shameful part is that some use the young people to
put money in their pockets, among others, the friends of the
regime.
I would ask the government: how did this end up costing three
times the amount originally projected, with 60% of the money
going to administration costs, $11,100 for each internship?
Could they explain that to us rationally instead of going on and
on?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each of the applications is approved by the
Government of Quebec. What is the problem with the Government
of Quebec? Is the hon. member saying today that the Government
of Quebec is bad, yes or no?
1425
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the secretary
of state obviously got the wrong program. He should let
competent people reply to the questions.
In addition to the $18,500 paid by Human Resources Development
Canada for each training period organized by the Council for
Canadian Unity, participating companies must also pay $8,500 per
trainee.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
How can this government justify the fact that the Council for
Canadian Unity bills a total of $27,000 for every six month
training period?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first
contract we had with this group it was true that it was beginning
a program. When one is beginning a program one has to reach out
to find people to help and to find participants.
During the first term, the cost per participant was high and
that is why, in signing a second contract to keep this good work
going, we decided to pay this particular group on a per
participant basis. Therefore the cost will come down to be more
in line with the more usual payment.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about a cost of $27,000 for each of the 453 six month
training periods that have been set up. This amounts to
$12.3 million. This is a shame. And it is unprecedented.
How can the government congratulate the Council for Canadian
Unity for its performance and renew its grant, when no one can
explain what happened to the $12.3 million?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member ought to ask this question to three of his own
colleagues.
I was told that three Bloc Quebecois ridings are taking part in
this good program of Experience Canada. Therefore, the hon.
member should consult his colleagues to find out how great this
program is for their constituents.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Government
of Alberta has declared war on public health services.
The federal government provided the ammunition in 1996. It
negotiated a secret agreement on the privatization of health
services with Ralph Klein.
Clearly and simply, yes or no, does the Minister of Health agree
with the 12 principles of this agreement?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as we have said repeatedly, there is nothing in Alberta's
so-called 12 principles that will ever stand in the way of the
Government of Canada enforcing the provisions of the Canada
Health Act. It will never stand in the way of our protecting
Canadian medicare. That is true in the case of Alberta and it is
true across the country.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are still waiting to hear whether the government will
act to protect the principles of the Canada Health Act.
Last week in Alberta I met with Friends of Medicare. One of
their members, Desmond Achilles, asked me to ask the Prime
Minister about these 12 principles for privatization, the
principles that the government negotiated with Ralph Klein.
Friends of Medicare want to know if the government is ready to
take the first step to stop Klein's privatization. Will the
Prime Minister and the health minister today repudiate Alberta's
12 principles for privatization?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have already made it clear that we oppose the policy of bill
11. We have also told the Alberta government that we want to see
the bill in its final form and that we want to see the
regulations.
Let me remind the hon. member that on two previous occasions
Premier Klein and his government have tried and failed to
introduce similar legislation. Twice before he has withdrawn the
bill.
Let us see whether once again Premier Klein will listen to the
people of Alberta and withdraw this legislation.
* * *
[Translation]
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, for
several weeks now the waltz of the billions at Human Resources
Development Canada has taken up Oral Question Period in the
House.
My question is for the minister truly responsible—not the
Minister of Human Resources Development—the Minister for
International Trade. Could he tell us about the $1 billion in
the Amtrak-Bombardier affair?
1430
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow me to be very clear.
The Export Development Corporation does not give grants. It is
a corporation that makes loans to businesses at commercial rates
of interest. So $1 billion is not missing. Loans are made at
commercial rates to international businesses and clients wishing
to buy goods here in Canada.
That is the specific mandate of the Export Development
Corporation, which generated profits of $118 million last year
and helped 5,000 companies export goods abroad.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister really thought I was putting my question to the
Minister of Human Resources Development. Perhaps he did not
understand what I was asking.
On average, 15% of the Export Development Corporation's budget,
or more than $100 million annually, is earmarked for bad loans.
There are two separate accounts: the EDC account, for all sorts
of uses, and the Canada account, which comes directly from the
government, directly out of taxpayers' pockets, for more
problematic situations.
My question is this: did the money for the loan to Amtrak in the
Bombardier project come from the Canada account or the EDC
account?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to go into specifics of a
particular transaction.
The Export Development Corporation is a corporation independent
of the government, which is perfectly able to answer this
question.
However, I find it interesting that the Progressive Conservative
Party seems to want to come down on the right and prevent the
government and Canadian government institutions from taking
action to help exports, to help our companies on international
markets, which create thousands, in fact millions of jobs in
Canada. Those are the facts and Canada can be proud of its
Export Development Corporation.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday the human resources development department admitted in
writing to a fourth investigation in the Prime Minister's riding.
Then the minister denied the truth of that document. By the end
of the day the department reversed its earlier statement.
Is the human resources development department's information
unreliable, or was the investigation abandoned purely for
political reasons?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
minister stated in the House on Friday, there was no
investigation of the particular file that was being asked about.
There was a mistake made by a rather lowly official who sent a
fax to the Bloc Quebecois. It was explained later by the deputy
minister that a mistake had been made. She apologized for it and
she has since sent the answer to the question today to the member
of the Bloc who asked the question in the first place.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
after the bungling in that department it is amazing that the
parliamentary secretary would have the fortitude to get up and
call officials in that department lowly. It is those people
across the way who are screwing up royally with taxpayer money.
The minister's little six point plan was supposed to clean up
all these problems. There was not going to be problems like this
any more. The minister has acknowledged her department gave
false information to a member of parliament regarding Placeteco.
Why does she not just admit her six point plan is nothing but a
PR exercise and that the incompetence and mismanagement—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Deputy Prime
Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself for
attacking the auditor general, an officer of this House. The
auditor general reviewed the six point program. He approves of
it. He wants to see it carried out.
When the hon. member gets to his feet again his first words
should be an apology to the auditor general and an apology to
this House.
1435
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as everyone in
this House is aware, the Minister of Human Resources Development
has repeated on numerous occasions that the $1.2 million paid to
Placeteco had made it possible to preserve—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will start again.
As everyone in this House is aware, the Minister of Human
Resources Development has said that the $1.2 million paid to
Placeteco by her department had made it possible to create and
maintain jobs at Placeteco. We have just had the figures from
her department. In 1998, Placeteco had 81 employees. In March
2000, after wasting the $1.2 million, it had 78 employees, or 3
fewer employees.
How can the minister tell us here in this House that the $1.2
million created jobs at Placeteco, when there are fewer jobs
after the $1.2 million has been squandered?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at various
times there have been as many as 135 people working at Placeteco.
The company did run into trouble in 1998 and the department had
two choices: do nothing and let the jobs disappear or work to
maintain the jobs and help create new jobs. We decided to
continue the project and work with the company.
The original firm now exists as two companies, Technipaint and
Placeteco that together employ 170 people with good prospects for
future growth.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, really, there
are limits. Despite what the minister has said on several
occasions, as everyone knows, about this money creating jobs, it
did not create a single one. Jobs at Placeteco have even been
lost, after the money was squandered. This money was diverted to pay
a bank loan.
How can the
Minister of Human Resources Development expect us to swallow her
story about the money creating and maintaining jobs, when there
are fewer jobs and the money was used in loan payments?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these two
companies which emerged from the one company that applied for TJF
funding have gone through ups and downs as do many firms in the
private sector.
We can decide to abandon them or work with them, but I am happy
to report that Technipaint has signed a contract with Bombardier
for the painting of 82 regional jets and currently has 92 people
working. Placeteco has a three year agreement with its employees
and a five year contract worth $8 million with Bell Helicopter.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday the human resources department could not tell
how many jobs were created by the $1.2 million grant to
Placeteco. This was because the project was under investigation,
but the minister obviously did not know that. She denied any
investigation.
The department promptly changed its story to back up the
minister. Even more helpfully, the department between Friday and
Monday morning magically produced healthy job creation numbers
for the project. Is that not all just a little too convenient?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just
taken the House through the numbers. The numbers are on papers
that have been sent to the Bloc, the original questioners; but I
do not even want to answer this question because the member—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Bonnie Brown: I have felt for a long time that this
particular questioner does not want to know the facts.
My opinion has been reiterated by a mayor of a small
municipality who travelled to Ottawa to defend himself and his
city against her attacks. He says in the paper that the MP does
not want to listen, that she does not want to hear facts, that
she does not want to know them, and that there is no point. He
is fearful that his town will be treated unfairly because she is
only out to make a name for herself. That is what a mayor says.
1440
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would hope there is no member of the House who could
be browbeaten into abandoning doing their job on behalf of
Canadians.
The facts of the matter are that on Friday, the last day the
House sat, the Department of Human Resources Development had a
document in the hands of members of the House saying that a grant
in the Prime Minister's riding, a fourth grant, was under
investigation.
The fact is that today, all of a sudden, there is no
investigation and the numbers that could not be provided on the
last sitting day are now available with no back-up documentation.
I think the government owes Canadians an explanation, and I would
like to hear it.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
already given the information and I would like to take this
opportunity to apologize for my misuse of the word lowly. I
meant a junior official and I feel very badly about that mistake.
I do not need any lectures from that member about doing my job.
If she was painting the full picture of HRDC, she would have
mentioned some time in the last seven weeks about the 3.7 million
people who regularly receive old age security payments, the 1.3
million people who get GIS, and the 1.2 million people who
regularly receive their EI cheques.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL BRIDGE CORPORATION
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we learned
that the Federal Bridge Corporation signed a contract with
Mediacom to allow that company to put up 60 billboards on federal
land in the Montreal region, thus contravening municipal bylaws
and the Quebec moratorium on such billboards that has been in
effect for five years.
Will the minister confirm that the Federal Bridge Corporation is
about to disregard Quebec and Montreal laws and regulations by
authorizing Mediacom to put up 60 billboards in the Montreal
region, in exchange for an amount of $40 million to be paid over
a 15 year period?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary, the Federal Bridge Corporation
consulted all the authorities—and the Sûreté du Québec in
particular—in the area of bridge safety.
The corporation did the right thing for all those who use
bridges every day in Montreal. There is no problem on our side.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister did not get my question at all. I am looking for a
commitment on his part.
Can the minister guarantee that he will not disregard the
opinions of the Quebec government, the City of Montreal and
transport experts who deem this initiative dangerous in terms of
road safety?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Federal Bridge Corporation complies with all
provincial and municipal regulations and bylaws. There is no
problem.
* * *
[English]
TAGS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last year an internal audit by HRDC
revealed that the majority of projects contained no evidence of
supervision or monitoring. There was no review of applications,
and in some cases the payments did not comply with the terms of
agreement.
No, I am not talking about the transitional jobs fund, but
rather a special audit of TAGS signed off on April 18, 1999. When
did the Minister of Human Resources Development learn about this
audit and what did she do to correct the problem?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know the answer to that. I cannot speak for the minister about
when she learned about any particular facts.
On the question of the other audit that has been the subject, I
have been the parliamentary secretary for almost two years and I
do know that the dates she has given in the House are the ones
that I recall as being at meetings too.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the jobs fund was not an
isolated instance.
The government claims to be a sound manager of the taxpayers'
money, but the truth is starting to leak out.
1445
Will the minister tell Canadians just how many programs in her
ministry are not following the rules and regulations?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member's information, TAGS
was actually created under the Tory government, prior to the
Liberal's coming to power. We signed a memorandum of
understanding with the Department of National Revenue to protect
our taxpayers to make sure that any moneys owed would be
collected. This is good Liberal common sense to protect the
taxpayers' dollars.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an effort
to cover up his lack of action on the increase in the price of
gasoline, the Minister of Industry has just announced that he
has ordered a study of Canadian gasoline markets by the
Conference Board of Canada.
The press release states “The Conference Board is the most
appropriate body to undertake this study as it is independent of
government and interest groups”.
How can the minister say such a thing when the member
organizations include Petro-Canada, Shell Canada and Suncor
Energy? How can he make such a statement?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
members of the Conference Board have the right to receive
information from the studies.
I think that even the Bloc Quebecois member would agree,
however, that the reputation of the Conference Board in terms of
its independence and the quality of its research is beyond
reproach.
I do not think that it will prepare a report that would raise
questions about its reputation.
[English]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is nice to be questioned by members opposite, who of
course had very little interest in the issue of gasoline pricing
for such a long period of time. Obviously it took a lot of
members on this side to discover the issue long before it was an
issue at the gas pumps.
Could the Minister of Industry tell the House the details about
the Conference Board and its ability to review this industry from
an independent point of view and give Canadian consumers who are
constantly being fleeced at the pumps some decent answers which
they certainly are not getting from the opposition?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the commitment to undertake a study was one which we
made in response to the task force that was led by the hon.
member and 46 other members of this caucus whose concerns about
the price of gasoline led them to do an in-depth study and to
request that a further study be done by people who have real
expertise.
The Conference Board of Canada brings the economic expertise and
the independence necessary to give us a thorough understanding of
how this market works, what the cause and effect relationship is
between prices at the crude level and prices at the retail level,
and some assistance in determining what policy—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
* * *
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who just
told us that it is good Liberal common sense to waste tax dollars
as has happened in the TAGS program.
We have an audit report from April of 1999, five years after the
program began and five years after Liberal administration. It
states that most files showed no evidence that project applicants
were checked for eligibility, one-third of the files had no
rationale for selecting the projects and one-third of the
projects did not even meet the criteria for the program.
How can the minister stand in his place and say this is a common
sense program when in fact the audit shows that it was another
boondoggle by the government?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report is very clear
concerning grants and loans given out by the federal government.
It is this: both the auditor general and the public accounts
show very clearly that there were two years in which there were a
lot of mistakes made. Those were in the years 1991 and 1992 when
such assistance programs started. Who was in power at that time?
I do not want to embarrass the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, you
tell him who was in power.
1450
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Veterans Affairs has embarrassed himself because
the audit I hold in my hand speaks of the TAGS program coming
into effect on May 16, 1994. It seems to me that his was the
party in power.
When did that minister become aware of this special internal
audit? When did the government decide to do something about it?
Or, did it decide, like the HRDC grants scandal, to just sweep it
under the rug?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is on a fishing
expedition. The TAGS program, the compensation program for
fishermen on the east coast, started under the Tory government,
as announced by the hon. John Crosbie.
When we look at the auditor general's report on all of these
programs we find that the worst violations were under the Tory
administration. It singled out the massive expenditure, the
millions of dollars, on a road to nowhere. That is exactly where
this hon. member's party is today.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
Alberta, Ralph Klein has proposed bill 11 to privatize hospitals.
In Nova Scotia, John Hamm is suggesting user fees. In New
Brunswick, Bernard Lord is wondering which is the best way to go.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Will he stop this
hemorrhage and put money into the health system by next week,
before his meeting with his provincial counterparts?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
obvious that the status quo is unacceptable. I have clearly
said so.
We need two things: first, a long term plan to improve the
quality and accessibility of health care; second, more money.
We are prepared to invest more money to help develop a plan to
change and improve our system.
That is the goal of the meeting with my counterparts later this
month.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
question still remains: What is the minister prepared to do to
stop bill 11? He has inferred that somehow the bill will fail on
its own and he can sit on his hands and do nothing.
I have to tell the minister that less than an hour ago the
Alberta health minister was reported as saying that he now
expects the private hospital legislation to pass without any
interference from the federal government, and he considers this a
very important development.
The minister is failing to answer the question. What is the
federal government going to do to stand up to bill 11, to stop it
and to save medicare? What is the answer?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have not been at all shy in expressing this government's
position that bill 11 will not help solve the problems we face in
medicare. It will lengthen, not shorten, waiting lists. It will
increase, not reduce, costs.
It is a draft bill. Last week the premier was talking about
possible amendments. Is the member prepared to assure the House,
is the Government of Alberta prepared to assure the House that it
will not make further amendments?
The bill may be amended. We have not yet seen the regulations.
At the appropriate time we will express our position with respect
to the Canada Health Act.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Eskasoni and Acadian bands in Nova Scotia have both been accused
of not being accountable for their federal funding.
Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell
us how he knows this when his own department has been criticized
for lack of accountability, deficient monitoring systems and no
regional management performance reports?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear
to the hon. member, as I have to other members, that the
department which I head up is the most audited department in the
entire government. Every first nation that we do business with
as a partner has to submit an audit every year. We use that
audit to look at the financial health of the community. With
that audit we look at whether we need a management plan to help
it with its capacity.
I can tell the House that every first nation in Atlantic Canada
has submitted those audits as per our requirements.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to hear the minister say that his department is
accountable to the taxpayer of Canada. However, some of the
bands do have accountability problems. It was only recently that
the Eskasoni Band submitted its complete and full audit to this
very minister.
1455
Can the minister tell us if the rest of the bands in Atlantic
Canada have submitted full and accountable audits to the
minister?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
should not have rehearsed his second question until he heard the
answer.
I have made it very clear to all members of the House that they
have submitted all of their audits and everything is according to
standard as we know it.
* * *
[Translation]
AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport.
We often hear about our Canadian and Quebec athletes living
below the poverty line and leaving the country because of the
lack of financial support.
What does the Government of Canada plan to do in this Olympic
and Paralympic year to ensure that our athletes are prepared to
compete to their full potential?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have this question from this side
of the House, since it appears not to be among the priorities of
the opposition side.
I am pleased to announce today that we are aware of this problem
and are responding to it. I have announced close to $60,000 in
additional direction assistance to nearly 1,300 carded athletes,
an increase of $5.4 million.
I have also announced an 80% increase to the funding of the
national sports centres, which provide essential services to
athletes and coaches. This represents an increase of
$1.5 million.
Finally, we want to increase—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lethbridge.
* * *
[English]
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
problem of Liberal mismanagement is nothing new. In fact, back
in April 1999 an audit by HRDC was conducted on the funds for the
TAGS program. This report highlighted the problems with HRDC
grants and contributions. The response to this report was that
HRDC was already taking steps to ensure better monitoring.
Why is it that six months later the minister of HRDC said she
knew nothing about the mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said that
I was unable to answer the question at that time. I now have
found the facts.
The auditor general's report we took very seriously. The
lessons we learned were used in the design of the successor
program to TAGS, the fisheries restructuring adjustment measures.
We also used the result of that particular audit to start a new
audit on grants and contributions. It was what we learned in
that first audit which alerted us to the possibility of auditing
other programs.
We took those audit results and implemented the recommendations.
The auditor general has the proof of our implementation.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last fall, when we were criticizing the use of other people's
names in the audio-visual industry in relation to CINAR, François
Macerola, the head of Telefilm Canada, tried to trivialize the
whole business by dismissing our comments as urban legend.
Telefilm had been kept abreast of CINAR's activities since
August 1993.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage have let Mr. Macerola
lie in describing as an urban legend what he knew to be a
serious misappropriation of funds?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, nobody lied. As soon as the initial allegations were
brought to the attention of the House, I personally referred
them to the RCMP. I hope that, if there are other allegations,
they will be referred directly to the RCMP.
* * *
[English]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
The Liberal government has slashed VIA Rail funding by over $600
million. These cuts have hurt Canadian communities and destroyed
jobs. They have jeopardized affordable rail service. They have
hurt northern communities that are dependent on VIA.
Now we find that the Liberal government has secretly loaned $1
billion to Amtrak, the American passenger rail service.
Why is the Liberal government supporting American trains while
abandoning VIA Rail?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be clear on the fact
that the EDC loans money to foreign companies all the time when
they agree to buy Canadian goods.
Every important government in the world conducts its business
this way.
The money invested in EDC has helped Canadians sell more than
$300 billion worth of goods distributed around the world in the
last few years.
* * *
1500
FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, last fall
the minister of fisheries promised that he would have a plan in
place by the spring to regulate the Atlantic fishery.
Today, the first day of spring, what is the plan? Does it
enforce one season for all fishermen and does it address the
controversial food fishery?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to answer this
question. It is the first one I have had in this millennium from
the hon. member.
We are working very hard. We have federal representatives
meeting with first nations bands. In fact, we have already
signed agreements with two of the bands. We will continue to make
sure that as the fishing season starts we take every opportunity
to have agreements so that we can have an orderly and regulated
fishery with conservation being our priority.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very concerned over the inability of Canadian winemakers to
export to some parts of United States.
Despite the free trade deal with the United States, Canadian wines
do not have access to American markets.
Could the Minister for International Trade tell us why Canadian
worldclass wines do not have access to these markets? What is
being done to rectify these conditions?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague.
Canadian wine producers are indeed making worldclass wines.
Like Canadian provinces, United States' states have their own
rules and regulations governing the import by individuals and
these sales have gained a lot of importance with the advent of
Internet shopping.
There are no states of which we are aware that prohibit all
wines from entering from outside their borders, but some states
do maintain restrictive market access regimes for commercial
importation. Therefore, we have pressed the United States to
bring its federal and state—
The Speaker: That will bring to a close our question
period for today.
* * *
[Translation]
POINT OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
I replied to a question during question period, I should have
said the interprovincial summer job exchange program instead of
Experience Canada.
The Speaker: The correction is made.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I went a bit too far when I said that the official
opposition did not view amateur sport as a priority.
I wish to apologize publicly because I know that members of the
House have worked very hard, particularly on the subcommittee on
the study of sport in Canada. I also wish to apologize to all
opposition party members who might have been offended.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to two petitions.
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present today.
The first petition contains 100 signatures of people in Golden,
which is part of my constituency. The petition calls on
parliament to take all measures necessary to ensure that
possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal
offence. This petition joins about 300,000 other signatures.
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition that I am pleased to present is on behalf of
students from the College of the Rockies. The petitioners call
on the government to restore $3.7 billion in transfer payments to
the provinces for post-secondary education and other issues
relating to that.
2076 COMPANY QUARTERMASTER
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
take particular pride in presenting the third petition with 240
signatures.
This petition was put together by students at Elkford Senior
Secondary School. They draw to the attention of the House that
during World War I in 1914 to 1918 certain members of the
Canadian expeditionary force were executed for cowardice and
desertion.
They call on parliament to pardon the soldiers of the 2076
Company Quartermaster.
I take particular pleasure in presenting this petition on their
behalf as they are young people who are starting to take part in
our great democratic process.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to the
House a petition from concerned citizens of my riding of
Cambridge. Over 600 of my constituents have signed this petition.
The petitioners pray and request that the Parliament of Canada
act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child. They
seek an amendment to the criminal code to extend the same
protection to unborn human beings that is currently enjoyed by
born human beings.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you will not agree, but I fully support
my constituents.
RURAL ROUTE MAIL COURIERS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed
by several hundred residents of the province of British Columbia
on the issue of rural route mail couriers.
The petition notes that these people often earn less than the
minimum wage and have working conditions reminiscent of another
era; that they have not been allowed to bargain collectively to
improve their wages and working conditions like other workers;
that private sector workers who deliver mail in rural areas have
collective bargaining rights as do public sector workers who
deliver mail for Canada Post in urban areas; that section 13(5)
of the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits these people from
having collective bargaining rights; that this denial of basic
rights helps Canada Post keep the wages and working conditions at
an unfair level and discriminates against rural workers.
The petitioners therefore call on parliament to repeal section
13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, a call that I fully
support.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas
is an experienced member of the House and he knows that it is
quite out of order to state whether he supports or opposes a
petition.
He should not looked so shocked because I know he has heard this
many times before. He said whether I agreed. That was
irrelevant. I know the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas will
want to refrain from such conduct in the future.
1510
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today signed by many
B.C. residents concerning the high level of child poverty in this
country. One in every five children live in poverty. We must
work together to improve the lives of these children who live in
poverty.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions both dealing with the same subject. I will only
read one of them.
It states “Your petitioners pray that parliament take all
measures necessary to ensure that the possession of child
pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that federal
police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law
for the protection of children”.
[Translation]
FALUN DAFA
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
table a petition pertaining to the Falun Dafa, also known as
Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline practised in China which,
according to its followers, leads to improved physical and
mental health.
The petitioners are calling upon the Parliament of Canada to
continue urging the Chinese government to release all arrested
Falun Dafa practitioners in China immediately, to lift the ban
on this spiritual discipline, to withdraw the international
arrest warrant for Mr. Li Hongzhi, who founded the movement, and
to achieve a peaceful resolution through open dialogue.
CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to table today pursuant to
Standing Order 36.
The first petition is one that has been presented many times
before. It deals with the resolution adopted unanimously by the
House on November 4, 1989 to eliminate child poverty by the year
2000. This petition contains some twenty signatures.
I took note of the remark you made to the opposition members
saying that they should not indicate if they support a petition
or not, so I will not give my opinion on this particular
petition.
CANADA POST
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition is similar to the one tabled by the
NDP member.
It deals with those people who deliver mail in rural areas. The
petitioners are calling upon the House and Parliament to repeal
section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act to allow these
people to unionize, to form a bargaining unit and to negotiate
with Canada Post to improve their working conditions.
This petition contains some 20 signatures.
[English]
PLUTONIUM
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition calling on parliament to take the necessary steps not to
proceed with any plans to import plutonium into Canada.
TAXATION
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today I have
a petition signed by 142 people in my riding of Red Deer.
The petitioners call on parliament to give Canadian taxpayers a
break by instituting tax relief of at least 25% in federal taxes
over the next three years, starting with the next federal budget.
This is a sentiment that I think we hear right across the
country.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from the citizens of Peterborough who are concerned
about the genetic engineering of food, plants and animals. They
point out that this is a practice that is still relatively new
but one which is expanding very quickly and the long term effects
are very difficult to predict.
The petitioners say that consumers have a right to know whether
or not food and seeds are genetically engineered. They call on
parliament to use the federal authority to ensure that choice in
both seeds and food products is available between genetically
engineered and non-genetically engineered food.
I am glad to present this petition.
1515
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
In the first, the petitioners are calling upon parliament to
enact legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition, signed by a number of people in my
riding, urges parliament to fulfill the 1989 promise of the House
of Commons to end child poverty by the year 2000.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I also have a petition which draws parliament's
attention to the fact that Canada has the second highest rate of
breast cancer in the world, next only to that of the United
States. Early detection is the only known weapon in the battle
against this disease. The petition calls upon parliament to
enact legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
CANADA POST
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is from rural route mail carriers.
They point out that they do not have the same collective
bargaining rights as public service employees of Canada Post
Corporation or private contractors. They are asking parliament to
repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition which calls upon parliament to enact legislation
to establish an independent governing body to develop, implement
and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance
and quality control standards in Canada.
CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another petition which calls upon parliament to fulfill the
1989 promise of the House of Commons to end child poverty by the
year 2000, which is this year.
CANADA POST
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition which calls upon the House of Commons and
parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation
Act to bring fairness to the rural route mail couriers.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians,
including from my own riding of Mississauga South. It is on the
subject of child poverty.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that one in
five Canadian children live in poverty. They remind us that in
1989 the House of Commons passed a resolution to seek to achieve
the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to use budget
2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the well-being of
Canada's children. I think we have seen that the government has
done just that.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADA HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFER
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period, the hon. member for Red Deer had four minutes remaining
to him in the time allotted for his remarks.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
summarizing the fact that the Liberals are the ones who have
destroyed the Canada Health Act. They are the ones who have
destroyed the accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and
universality of the health care program. They are the Kevorkians
of health care.
What are the solutions? One solution is obviously that of
funding. There is a need to return that funding. Over the 10
year period from 1993 to 2004 the Liberals have cut $36 billion
from health care. We need co-operation between the provincial and
federal governments, not using the axe as a hammer and not
staying with the socialized state run health care system which
was good in the 1960s but is not good in the 21st century.
We only have to look at today's newspapers to see what the
government is doing with the provinces. Whether it is the health
minister and his drive-by smear or the Prime Minister promising
the status quo on health care, over and over again there is the
attack on the provinces.
We are 23rd out of the 29 OECD countries when it comes to
technology. Germany, Sweden and other countries have looked at
new and modern methods of surgery. They are putting us in the
dark ages in comparison.
One only has to visit hospitals across the country to find that
out.
1520
We need to stop scaring people and stop using emotion. We need
to stop threatening two tier U.S. for profit health care.
Everybody is opposed to it. Let us make that clear and stop
scaring seniors in particular.
Let us talk about the waiting lists. Let us talk about
technology and the shortage of specialists. Let us talk about the
brain drain. Let us talk about what we are going to do about long
term care patients and the fact that one in ten Canadians today
are over 65. In 25 years one in five Canadians will be over the
age of 65. These are the real problems which members should be
talking about and for which we should be trying to find solutions
in co-operation with the provinces instead of constantly
hammering the provinces.
We need to fix the Canada Health Act. We need to talk about
clarifying the role of the provinces and the role of the federal
government. This has to be looked at with an intelligent
approach, not based strictly on emotion but based on an
unsustainable system where the status quo is not acceptable.
We need a results based health care system, one that is centred
around the patient. We need patient centred health care where we
worry more about the patient than we worry about the system. If
we start from this grassroots basis we will deliver a health care
system people will be happy with.
Above all we have to encourage provinces to try pilot projects.
Maybe Bill 11 in Alberta is not the answer. At least the federal
government should want to try new things as pilot projects and
not threaten the provinces to cut off the funding. We cannot
smear the provincial governments. It is not the way to build
co-operation.
I ask the government to stop playing politics with our health
care system. Let us find some solutions.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question for the member for Red Deer arises from
comments which he made in closing his speech. He said that maybe
Bill 11 in Alberta is not the answer. Perhaps the hon. member
could elaborate on that.
Many of us are deeply concerned about Bill 11. We believe that
this is a very clear assault on universal health care in Canada,
that it is an attempt to introduce a two tier American style
health care system and if it is allowed to proceed by the federal
Liberal government, it will result in the death of medicare.
The member for Red Deer has said that maybe Bill 11 is not the
answer. Does he or does he not support Bill 11?
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, certainly I support Bill 11.
I think it is the way to go. We have to try new things. When
people say they are opposed to it, we have to ask them if they
want the status quo. Do they want to have medicare as it was in
the 1960s, a socialized, state run hospital system along the
lines of those in North Korea and Cuba? Are those the kinds of
health care systems they want or do they want to modernize the
system? It should be a pilot project. We should try it.
The premiers are forced into coming up with these ideas because
there is no leadership from the federal government. That is what
is wrong. Whether it works or not, the point is they are trying
to fix the system which is unsustainable and the status quo is
not an option. And if it does not work, we will try something
else.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member talked about solutions. His first solution was to
throw more funding at it.
The member should refer to the excellent report, which was two
years in the making, of the National Forum on Health. It found
and observed among other things that at least $11 billion in our
health care system was not being spent wisely and that it was
important that Canada seek to rationalize the health care system
to ensure that our valuable health care dollars are being spent
wisely in the system.
The member also said that we were all against two tier health
care. I am not sure that is quite right in view of the fact that
his own colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, has
announced his proposed leadership of the new Canadian alliance
and is to run precisely on a two tier health care system, one for
the rich and one for everybody else.
I think the member ought to do his homework and get his facts
straight.
1525
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, certainly after listening to
the first part of the member's comments, he should talk to the
health minister and check out the use of medical dollars the
right way. We agree 100% with that. There is waste. There is
accountability required but the government has cut $25 billion
from the cash transfers to the provinces. That is too much.
Obviously that needs to be restored.
As far as a two tier system, I will repeat that I believe that
pretty well every member is opposed to two tier U.S. for profit
health care where the rich have one type of health care and the
poor another. Whether one of our party's members or one of his
party's members decides to go off on his or her own and promote
health care for the rich is totally up to that member. Everybody
has a right to do that. This party's position is it is opposed
to two tier for profit health care.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we can listen all we want to the member opposite say
that he rejects a two tier American health care system. I can
say that his very leader at the Ontario Hospital Association
convention not so many years ago preached precisely that. I can
quote person after person in the Reform Party who is prepared to
stand and talk about a two tier Americanized system. To hear the
member opposite caterwaul away and talk about their not being in
favour of two tier American style medicine and health care is
totally erroneous. He should look at what his party members and
his leader have said in the past. Then he would know.
Not so long ago, on February 23, 2000, the Reform Party had
prebudget discussions. What did Reform members talk about in
terms of how much money they would put into health care in
Canada? The answer is a big fat zero. If you were so intent in
putting health care money in, why at that time did you not
indicate that you were prepared to do so? Talk about duplicity.
It is outrageous.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows he must address
his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is the
government that has created a two tier health care system that
has been going on for years. It is multi-tier. Some 50% of
people in Ontario have to go to the U.S. for cancer treatment.
That is two tier. Thirty per cent of patients in Rochester are
Canadians who are paying. There is the fact that the WCB jumps
the queue. There is the fact that so many others can jump the
queue.
Obviously it is the government that has created the two tier
health care. It is the government members who have to be
responsible for the destruction of health care. They are the
ones in government, not us. And when we are, we will fix that
health care system. There will be funds and we will review that
program.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.
I am very pleased to join the debate for a number of reasons. I
am glad that attention is being drawn to the serious problems in
the administration of some parts of HRDC. My concern stems from
my view of the importance of what Human Resources Development
Canada does in this country.
The motion suggests that funds should be diverted, channelled
away from HRDC to the provinces for health care. I said I
thought HRDC is very important. Health care is very important.
The matter that we are addressing, the way grants and
contributions are administered, is very important. The motion by
the Reform Party suggests to me that it lacks vision on at least
two grounds.
1530
The first one is the thought that these HRDC funds have nothing
to do with health care. This is a lack of vision as to what true
health care is in Canada. It has been shown that when the
economy is good and booming and people are working, people are
healthier. It has been shown that when young people can be made
to feel confident or when older people can be made to feel
confident, they are healthier.
It has been suggested that we divert these funds from one area
to another, from human resource development in Canada in its true
sense to health care in the provinces. This is some sort of a
facade or a smoke and mirrors exercise the Reform Party is going
through. In fact HRDC programs are a critical part of health
care and, by the way, a critical part that the federal government
plays.
That brings me to my second area of lack of vision on the part
of the Reform Party. I just heard the previous Reform member
talking about it. I believe in partnerships with the provinces,
but this is the only level of government which can work in the
national interest promptly and effectively and which can reach
into any part of the country where there is a problem and solve
it. From the other point of view, it can reach into any part of
the country where something good is happening and help the rest
of the country to take advantage of it.
To blindly transfer funds to the provinces is not our duty, even
though I believe in partnerships with the provinces. As we all
know, transfers to the provinces now are larger than they have
ever been in the history of Canada. There are substantial moneys
being transferred.
It interested me this time when there was a considerable
increase in the transfers to the provinces and the transfers were
described as being for higher education and research and for
health care. That was because one of the things the federal
government is trying to do is to improve education and research
across Canada so that our people are better prepared for the new
economy and can take advantage of it, so that our economy will
boom, and so that our people will feel better and as I said at
the beginning will actually be better. We will need to spend
less on hospitals if the economy is actually functioning.
We transferred those moneys. The budget says higher education,
research and health. That is what it was for. I have heard
nothing from the provinces about higher education and research.
That includes, by the way, health research. I have heard
nothing. They have simply complained that the money transferred
for health care at the present time was not sufficient.
It is on these two grounds: first from the point of view that
health will be improved by moving these moneys from Human
Resources Development Canada to the provinces and, second, from
the point of view that the provinces in some miraculous way can
manage these funds better than the federal government.
Although it is not directly relevant to the debate, I want to
give one example of something that has occurred in the last two
years. I think members opposite pander to the provinces. I have
great respect for the provinces, but those members forget their
duty is in the national interest at the federal level.
I just want to mention putting our elementary schools on the
Internet. One might ask what that has to do with today's
argument. I for one know that the elementary schools are
absolutely and entirely within provincial jurisdiction, and so
they should be. The thought of the federal government, this
House, trying to run the day to day operations of an elementary
school in Peterborough frightens me, but that does not stop me
from saying for once that the federal government has to reach
into our elementary schools and do something about bringing them
into the modern era.
The government did that. On our own we reached directly with
federal involvement into the provincial jurisdiction. We put
every elementary school and all other schools on the Internet.
That is a federal government acting in provincial jurisdiction in
the national interest. That is what I think we should be doing
in health care.
1535
Certainly we should transfer our share of the funds, but we
should first of all have some idea, some plan as to where those
funds would go. Second, we should not do it, as this motion
suggests, by gutting the rolls of the federal government in human
resource development, the development of the human resource of
Canada across the country.
I most truly recognize that there are problems with the
management and the operation of some of the grants and
contributions programs in HRDC, but I think this motion is
against the national interest and, as I have tried to explain,
will not help health in Canada.
To make these points, if I might, I have a list of every one of
the grants and contributions in my riding in the last year or so.
This list was published five or six weeks ago in two local
newspapers. It occupied two pages in those newspapers. People
read it with great interest. With great openness the people of
Peterborough have been able to study these grants and
contributions to see truly what they mean.
These grants and contributions are very important to me. It is
very important to me that these grants be properly managed. I do
not want it to be that the files are lost or that there is
something wrong with the way they are being administered. Nor do
I want these grants and contributions being made to unsuitable
and inappropriate projects. I just do not.
This is simply one list, the list for Peterborough. We all know
that opposition ridings in some areas of these grants and
contributions have received far, far more than the ridings of
government members such as me.
Let me look at the very first one on the list. They are not in
any alphabetical or other order. The first one is Community
Opportunity and Innovation Network Peterborough. That is an
organization which deals with young people in all sorts of ways
by training them in computer skills and things of that sort. In
particular, in recent years it has been teaching them and
encouraging them to become entrepreneurs in our community, to
develop companies on their own. At least one of those companies
has become an international company already.
The next one on the list, and I am just going through it in the
order I have it here, is a local training board, a
provincial-municipal-federal operation. Among the many things it
does it conducts apprenticeship programs. Apprenticeship
programs nowadays are largely with smaller businesses, smaller
workshops.
If I go through this I see others working with the homeless in a
very practical way. I see another where jobs are created to help
all Peterborough businesses operate better in the international
marketplace. We see Junior Achievement, Kawartha Lakeshore, a
widespread area. Again it is youth entrepreneurship that we see
there. Another one deals with helping elementary students, as I
mentioned before, think out their career options more
effectively. Another one is working with the municipalities of
Peterborough on emergency preparedness and creating various jobs.
I know my time is limited. I could mention the John Howard
Society, which I have just done. I could mention the
conservation authority, which also trains people through these
programs, and a whole variety of other groups. My point is that
in Peterborough these are good programs. In Peterborough these
programs are well administered. I deplore the fact that the
Reform Party would like to gut this area of federal government
activity on the fake premise that in some way it will help health
care in Canada.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the member says the Reform Party wants to gut these
programs. It is utter nonsense. We are saying that the funding
for these programs should be frozen at the same level as it was
this year, which is $13.3 billion. A $13.3 billion program is
pretty healthy. We are simply saying that, instead of putting
more money in it this year. By the way, an extra $2.5 billion
was put into grants and contributions last year so this is hardly
a program that is in peril of its life. Instead of putting
another $1.5 billion in it this year, it should be put into
health care.
1540
What are the government's priorities? The member tends to give
us the impression that its priorities are these grants programs.
Government members talk about more funds being spent on that. I
think the government is completely out of touch with the people
of Canada.
The people of Canada do not want more grants and contributions
so the government can use them for political purposes. The
people of Canada are terribly worried about our health care
system and about the fact that there is not enough support for
it. Yet the government is blustering and puffing and blowing
about a simple suggestion to free spending on grants and
contributions, which is already fat enough with $3.3 million a
year being spent on it, and does not want to put $1.5 billion
into health care. I invite the member to explain to Canadians
why another $1.5 billion into health care is so repugnant to him.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
her question. At the beginning of my speech I made the point
that this is an effort to divert moneys from HRDC into the
bottomless pit of provincial health care as it stands at the
moment.
I heard one of the member's colleagues say previously that
something needs to be done about the way health care is managed.
Do we take money from a set of programs which already has
objectives and is serving useful purposes and put it into a
bottomless, formless pit by just throwing it to the provinces?
My answer to that is no.
I was mentioning the grants in my riding. The Victorian Order
of Nurses and Home Care get support from this. Trent Valley
Literacy, one of the literacy groups in our community, helps
adults and younger people become literate. These are worthwhile,
known programs. Why freeze or divert moneys from these programs
to something we do not yet know? We heard the discussion about
the bill in Alberta. We do not yet know how best to spend the
moneys or how best the moneys will be spent in different parts of
the country.
I see employment assistance programs, first step workshops for
people who have great difficulty getting employment to help them
get the first job. These are important programs that are
operating now. The diversion of these funds to provinces like
Alberta which are moving toward private sector health care is
inappropriate.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have heard many strange things from the other side of
the House, but this is the first time I have ever heard health
care referred to as a bottomless pit. That has to set some sort
of record.
I do not think the hon. member for Peterborough has begun to
understand the motion. He keeps going back to HRDC, and well he
might, but the motion refers to grants and contributions of all
kinds. We are talking about that $13 billion manure pile which
is out there to help the friends of the Liberal Party. We are
not just talking about HRDC. That just happens to be the goût du
jour measure.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, this manure pile includes
the Ontario March of Dimes, which helps people find jobs; the
Canadian Hearing Society, the Rural Women's Economic Development
Group, which helps rural women develop their own businesses; and
targeted wage subsidies for disadvantaged youth. That is what
the manure pile the member refers to contains.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this is a very important and hugely interesting debate
for all Canadians wherever they live in this great country.
Health care is a very important issue and Canadians expect all
levels of government to take a keen and important interest in
this kind of issue because it is so important not only to
individuals but to the families of Canadians.
1545
I am a farmer and still live on the family farm. When I heard
the member opposite talk about a manure pit, it really rankled me
a little bit because, as the hon. member for Peterborough
indicated, we are talking about money for students and money for
the disabled. We are talking about money for important
initiatives that the Government of Canada helps to fund. It is
quite something to hear Reformers talk about manure. All they
are noted for is a lot of crap.
Having said that, this particular motion is really insincere.
It is replete with duplicity and hypocrisy.
On February 23, under solution number 17, the members of the
Reform Party had their chance to spell out in the prebudget
alternative issues what they would do in health care. What did
they say? They said that it would add zero dollars.
Today, with their smiling faces and great duplicity, they have
stood and pretended to defend medicare, to defend what Canadians
hold near and dear, our health care system. It is galling to
hear Reformers talk the way they talk because we know what they
stand for. They stand for two tier American style health care.
No matter how they protest, no matter how they caterwaul away and
try to pretend that they are not up to their necks in an American
two-tiered system, they are.
Canadians see through these people and through their hypocrisy.
Canadians, quite frankly, reject that. I can quote the Reform
Party leader and member after member who have over the past
little while talked in terms of American style health care and a
two-tiered system. We are not going to take it. Canadians will
reject it and the government stands firm.
When we brought the budget down this past February, it was clear
that we not only had a commitment last year of $11.5 billion, but
we had a commitment this year as well. We gave another $2.5
billion over to the provinces and territories to use as they saw
fit. They could spend some on education. They could spend some
on health. They had the ability to use the money in a very
meaningful way and with great flexibility built in and know that
the Government of Canada would be there for them when it counted.
When the Minister of Health meets with his territorial and
provincial counterparts in May, we will have an opportunity to
bring the partners and stakeholders together on this very
important issue and see where we will go in health care. It is
not always about throwing money at the system. It is about how
best to approach the system and make it work better into the 21st
century.
There are all kinds of ideas that need to be looked at. Three
come to mind very quickly. First, is there a better way to
provide primary care in Canada? Primary care and its delivery
are important topics that we need to look at. I am pleased that
the Minister of Health and his counterparts in the territories
and provinces will do precisely that. They will take a look at
how best to approach that very important area.
Second, how best can we take a look at home care and community
care, and are there national standards? Is there a standard that
can apply to Canada in terms of how best to provide that? As the
House knows, that is an important and integral part of the health
care delivery system in Canada. We want to examine that.
As chair of the Standing Committee on Health, I can tell the
House that I have been very involved in that debate and that
process. I have attended conferences and have talked to people
across Canada on how best to deliver that to Canadians in a good,
positive and meaningful way. With our aging society, that will
be the way of the world and the way of the future. We need to
ensure that we have a system in place that instead of being a
patchwork system across Canada, will be in the best interests of
Canadians and their families.
The third thing I want to touch on in terms of what the health
minister and his counterparts in the provinces and territories
should look at is the whole issue of accountability.
1550
Canadians want the health care system to be accountable. We
need to look at that and we need to put in place the checks and
balances that will enable us, in a very meaningful and positive
way, to have a system of accountability that makes sense to
ordinary Canadians.
We will take a look at that and we will do it in a way that
underscores the commitment of the Government of Canada, unlike
the Reformers who would gut the system, who would add no cash to
the system and who would tear the system apart because that is
what they are known for and what they are good at. At every
opportunity those people opposite have tried to pit region
against region, province against province and group against group
to tear at the very fabric of Canadian society.
We do not have to go very far to see that. They are always
trying to chip away at the institutions of our great country.
Instead of, for example, celebrating the supreme court and the
fact that our supreme court is considered around the world to be
one of the finest, what do they do every chance they get? They
tear at the very fabric of that great institution. Every chance
they get they try to tear down the values of Canada and tear away
at the very symbols of our country and they do it in the most
outrageous sense.
It struck me not so long ago that this was the party that was
going to bring a fresh start to parliament. What did we see the
Reformers do? The first thing they did was call in the limousine
and move into Stornoway.
What was one of the next things they did? They marched up and
down these grand halls of democracy with mariachi bands, burritos
and all kinds of stuff sticking out of their mouths, denigrating
the halls of parliament. Canadians see through that. Canadians
will not stand for that kind of nonsense from a party that
claimed it would bring a fresh start to parliament, that claimed
it would bring fresh air and a new way of doing business in
parliament.
The flag flap was another interesting debate. I distinctly
remember the member for Medicine Hat taking the Canadian flag
from his desk and throwing it unceremoniously to the centre of
the floor of the House of Commons. A fresh start, they say, a
new way of doing business, they say. The flag flap, the throwing
of the Canadian flag on the floor of the House of Commons, the
marching up and down the hallowed halls of democracy in this land
with mariachi bands and sombreros, imagine. Where was the leader
at the time of the Nisga'a treaty? He was in Mexico sunning
himself on the beaches. Imagine the duplicity. Imagine the
hypocrisy of these people.
We see this again today when they come in with crocodile tears
talking about the health care system and what they want to do.
Canadians see through it. Canadians will not stand for what they
stand for. They will reject it every time.
Reformers cannot even get their act together. They are so far
on the right wing that they do not even know where to begin to
get their people rallied because they do not know how. They,
along with this motion, will ultimately be thrown into the
dustbin of history where they so duly belong.
We on the government side will continue to protect the values of
Canada. We will continue to protect the health care system that
we know is important. Canadians look to us to provide that. They
look to the federal government to give the kind of leadership
necessary in this very important area. We will continue to do
that. Unlike the Reformers, we will do it with honour and with
dignity for all Canadians.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have been listening very quietly here to a little bit
of unparliamentary language. I heard the word hypocrisy used. I
heard the words lack of honour used. Coming from the most
corrupt government in the history of Canada—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I believe the hon.
member has just gone into debate. Questions and comments, the
hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
1555
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is pretty clear that the Liberals do not care about
health care. They only care about denigrating their opponents,
the people who are trying to hold them accountable. That will
not work. Believe me, Canadians can see through political
rhetoric and they will see through that shameful speech we just
heard. This is the party that just called health care a
bottomless pit. It is on the record today. That is the party
opposite, the government party.
The member talked about pitting province against province and
causing divisions in the country and yet his government is making
unremitting attacks against other provinces, such as tearing down
what Ontario is doing and making attacks against Alberta. This
is the government that has attacked other leaders in the country
who are trying to clean up the mess it created in health care.
The motion is very straightforward. It says that we should
freeze the support for the grants and contributions program that
has proven over and over to be badly managed and abused.
In today's headlines alone there were five or six instances of
poor management, mismanagement and shocking misuse of public
money, yet the government resists giving any more money to health
care. It would rather put more money into these programs; $13.5
billion is not enough for it. It wants more. It does not want
to put more money into health care. Instead of defending that
with logic, it simply tears down the opposition.
I see no honour and no dignity at all in the government, and
neither do Canadians.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, it is interesting how they
can dish it out but they cannot take it, these holier than thous.
It is interesting to hear them get up on their feet and talk
about honour and dignity.
We stand for honour and dignity. We do not stand for the
dishonour of simply grandstanding to carve out a name for
ourselves, as I suggest the hon. member is doing. Instead of
going off into some flighty la-la land like she has been doing
for the last little while, she should concentrate on the facts.
The facts are crystal clear but, oh no, she does not want to do
that. That would muddy the water too much and it would not get
her grandstanding message across.
This member and all Reformers opposite should take note of the
importance of the transitional jobs funds and other HRDC measures
that we put into place. Instead of pulling apart and trying to
pit group against group and region against region, they should be
celebrating what we are doing for aboriginals, students, the
disabled and community groups across our great country.
A number of Reformers actually took time to write the minister
and to lobby on behalf of their constituents, and yet here they
do the big flip-flop. Yes, they say that they have lobbied on
behalf of their constituents but that politically they now have
to oppose it and grandstand like they have been doing for the
past seven weeks.
Canadians see through those people over there. They see who they
are and what they represent. Canadians will have no part of it.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, there were comments made a minute ago about resist and
about giving more money to health care.
In 1996 the National Forum on Health went to the Prime Minister
and asked for $1.5 billion, and he gave it to them. Last year
all the premiers came to Ottawa and said they needed $2.5
billion. The Prime Minister gave them $3.5 billion, $11.5 billion
over three years, and in this budget an additional $2.5 billion.
Premier Harris today has half a billion dollars sitting in the
bank. He can use it yesterday.
1600
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman makes a
very good point. I think that we as a government have shown
repeatedly that we are prepared to go the extra mile.
It is interesting. The Reformers are talking about $1.5 billion
today. We put in $2.5 billion. They should be supporting the
budget. They should have been supporting the budget, instead—
Mr. Myron Thompson: Tell the truth.
Mr. Bob Mills: Liar.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kelowna.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to advise you that I will be dividing my time with the
member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
I would like to address the motion which is before the House.
For the edification of the member who just spoke and the one who
preceded him, I would like to read the motion which we are
debating. It reads as follows:
That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the
Canada Health and Social Transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the
$1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this
year's federal budget.
I wish sincerely that the two members who just spoke would have
read the motion and debated it, rather than talking about
something which they know very little.
I would like to address a number of the accusations that were
made. I will do so implicitly, as I proceed through my speech,
but I want to focus my attention on three perspectives of this
motion and I will explain why it is before the House.
First, health care is more important to Canadians than
increasing grants and contributions. They want health care to be
the number one priority.
Second, I want to address the lack of internal audits from the
various departments that are in the grants and contributions
business.
Third, I want to look at the boondoggle in HRDC.
Before I do that I want to underline that the purpose of this
motion, the intent of this motion and the content of this motion
is not to suggest that there should be no money in grants and
contributions, but rather to not increase grants and
contributions.
According to the budget, there will be a $1.5 billion increase
in grants and contributions. We believe and respectfully suggest
to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister that instead of
putting that money into grants and contributions it go to health
care.
Let us be abundantly clear that this is the motion. That is our
purpose. That is the direction we wish to go.
People in Canada, hon. members included, want health care. We
want a good, sound, solid, defensible, sustainable health care
system, one which will look after our needs, one which will look
after the needs of our families, our children and our
grandchildren.
There are a lot of things about the health care system that are
excellent. We have wonderful servants in the health care system,
health care workers who know their jobs well and who are true
professionals. We have excellent people in the research field
and I commend them for the work they are doing, but all is not
well in our health care system.
I would suggest that one of the difficulties in the health care
system is in its administration. There is duplication. There is
duplication as far as the federal and provincial governments are
concerned. There is duplication in the respective municipal
organizations and administrative structures that exist in the
various health regions and hospital boards.
There is a tremendous turf war that is going on within the
health care system as well, among the nursing professions, the
specialists, the medical personnel and the various other
professions. There are turf wars being fought at the expense of
the health care system and the recipients of the health care
system are not benefiting from them.
Something needs to be fixed. I will not do that and I do not
think it is the government's job to do it. The important thing
is to recognize that something needs to be done to fix the system
so that the delivery of the health care system is as efficient
and as effective as it possibly can be.
Very closely allied to that is the business of money. We have
had tremendous technological advances which we need to pay for.
There are very expensive procedures and very expensive machines.
The adaptation of technology costs a lot of money. We need to
pay for that.
1605
At this point I cannot help but look at the history of this
government. There were a lot of statements made a moment ago
about how much money the government put into the health care
system. I want to read into the record exactly what has
happened.
In 1993-94, the year the Liberal government took office, there
was some $18.8 billion transferred to the provinces for health
care and social services. In 1994-95 it was reduced by $100,000
to $18.7 billion. In 1995-96 it was reduced to $18.4 billion. In
1996-97 it was $14.8 billion, a reduction of $3.6 billion. In
1997-98 it was $12.5 billion, a further reduction of $2.3
billion. By this point there was a tremendous reduction.
In 1998-99 it remained at $12.5 billion. Then in 1999-2000 it
was increased by $2 billion to $14.5 billion. In the 2000-01
budget, which we just received, it was increased by $1 billion.
That is what we are being told.
If we add those figures we discover very quickly that the amount
of money which is being added to the transfers is actually less
than the amount taken out. What kind of business is that?
We are coming to the House and saying, instead of increasing
grants and contributions, why does the government not take that
increase and put it into health care? Does that not make a lot
of sense? That is exactly what we ought to be doing. That is
what we are talking about and that is why we are concerned.
On one side we hear about all of these wonderful things that
have been done by putting all of this money into the health care
system. Some money has been put in, but what the government
forgets to say is how much was taken out. That is where it lies.
That is where the dignity and the respect of the government comes
into question.
Why does it not tell the whole story? Why does it tell only
half of it? Why does it tell only that part which sounds good?
Why does it not tell the people the rest of it? Does it think
that doctors do not know what has happened? Does it think that
medical professionals do not know what has happened? Does it
think that the administrative districts of the hospital systems
do not know what has happened? They know exactly what has
happened. Ask the ministers of health and the provincial
premiers what has happened. They know what has happened.
It is all very well for the government to say “That is not what
really happened”. Look at the bank accounts. If the premier of
Ontario has money left in his bank account, good for him. He
will spend it in a way that is far more effective than the
minister who says that health care is some kind of big black
hole.
I want to move a little further into the area of grants and
contributions. First, we need to recognize that some of the
biggest winners in this year's budget are: the environment,
which received a 35% increase; HRDC, which received a 30%
increase; industry, which received a 29% increase; Canadian
heritage, which received a 28% increase; ACOA, which received an
18% increase; citizenship and immigration, which received an 18%
increase; and finance, which received an 11% increase. How is
this money being spent? That is really important. We have had
one audit presented to the House which showed a very damning
picture as to where that money went.
Let me address this issue from another point view, that of
internal audits. I discovered that since January 1, 1994, which
is close to the time the government took office, there have been
no audits performed that we know of in the Department of Finance,
which received $250 million, and none in National Defence, which
received $1.44 billion. Industry Canada had one audit in April
1995 and it spent $3.19 billion. Justice had no audit and it
spent $1.63 billion. The Treasury Board, which had the smallest
grant, $82 million, had two audits.
1610
That really is a frightening situation. Billions of taxpayer
dollars are being spent. Where are they going? How are they
being used? These are very critical issues.
Let me give the House another example. The Minister of Human
Resources Development rose in the House and referred to Kelowna
as having received some $37 million in grants from her
department. I looked at the numbers on the list. One of the
entries was for a $7.6 million grant to an aboriginal management
group. What did I discover when I checked into it? The money
did not go to Kelowna. It went to nine different aboriginal
bands, but Kelowna was identified as having received the money.
The Business Development Bank of Canada received $250,000 from
HRDC. When I questioned the regional director on where the money
went and why it went to the bank, he said that it was a mistake
and that it should have been recorded as having gone to Kamloops.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment
Insurance; the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Human
Resources Development.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member for Kelowna
discussed various spending initiatives in the budget. One of the
things he glossed over in his presentation was the fact that
direct government program spending by the federal government this
year compared to 1993 when we first took office was down $4
billion. At the same time, in the last budget the Canada health
and social transfer was completely restored to the level it was
at when we took office in 1993.
If the member would reflect upon this he would see that this has
been demonstrated in the government's commitment to transfers to
the provinces, which includes the Canada health and social
transfer. If equalization payments were included, he would see
that transfers are up to about $40 billion.
If we look at the direct spending trends since we took office
and brought the deficit under control, we find that our spending
increases have kept pace with inflation and the demographic
growth in the population, and that is it.
When the member throws out these percentages of direct program
spending he masks and distorts the real picture. The
government's direct program spending is significantly down from
1993 when we first took office, and our transfers have been
completely restored, if one includes the tax points, which in an
honest debate one must do.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I was wondering how
long it would take before somebody would raise the tax point
issue. The point is that the discretionary cash has remained
constant in a variety of areas, so the tax points really do not
adjust to the full measure which the member has suggested.
I would like to address a more important part of this issue, and
that has to do with the balanced budget. The hon. member, in an
almost sanctimonious tone of voice, suggested that the Liberals
balanced the budget, thereby licking the deficit, and what a
wonderful job they have done. It is pretty easy to balance the
budget, simply by increasing taxes. That is not hard to do, and
the Liberals have done that.
There have been some 37 tax increases since the Liberals took
office. If governments keep raising taxes they are ultimately
going to get to the point where they will have a balanced budget,
and the Liberals have done exactly that. But who balanced the
budget? The taxpayer; not the good spending of the government.
Let us not forget that the Liberals have paid nothing down on
the debt, or if they have it was a minuscule amount. About $42
billion is taken out of the treasury each year to pay the
interest on the mammoth debt.
Think of what could be restored to health care if we did not have
to pay that tremendous service charge. And if there should be a
shift in the interest rates, imagine what would happen with $580
million with an increase of 1% in the interest rates. That is a
little better than $5 billion. Look at what that would do.
1615
This is not idle talk. We need to do this through the
reallocation of resources that we have. We do not want to throw
more and more money at these things. That is what is happening.
We are increasing the money where departments have shown that
they are not totally responsible. We want to put it into health
care which is where the people of Canada want it and where it is
needed.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am really confused. The
member said earlier that there are fundamental problems in our
health care system in administration and duplication. Is he
saying that even though we put so much money into the system we
should put more money into the system as opposed to fine tuning
and eliminating duplication? Is more money going to add more
duplication? Is that what he is saying?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I am not surprised with
the history of the member that he would be confused. He has
always been confused. I raised two points. Number one, there is
an administrative problem that has to be fixed. Number two, more
money should be put into the system. I mentioned specifically
technology and other things. These are not necessarily the same
thing. They are mutually exclusive or certainly can be treated
and should be treated separately.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am very happy that my party has put forward the motion
which calls for $1.5 billion to be put back into the CHST. Let us
not forget that this is not only for health care but is for
education and welfare transfers too, in particular education and
health care. We have been fighting for this for such a long time
while the government has been gutting the two principal social
programs that Canadians rely upon.
We are not asking for new money. We are asking for money to be
taken away from grants and loans that the government gives to
organizations through HRD. We, and in particular the member for
Calgary—Nose Hill, have demonstrated very clearly that the money
has been wasted. That is only the tip of the iceberg.
Let me show what the government is also doing. The amount at
HRD was $1 billion, but let us look at the Export Development
Corporation where the government has $22 billion of taxpayers'
money in outstanding loans of which $2.8 billion has already been
declared deadbeat. The government gave $2.8 billion of
taxpayers' money to corporations. For example, it was given to
despotic rulers where there is no accountability and for
environmentally appalling and stupid programs that have no
measure of success.
The government has given away $2.8 billion of taxpayers' money
through the Export Development Corporation. Who runs the Export
Development Corporation? Pat Lavelle, who has been a friend of
the Prime Minister for 40 years.
That is what we have a real problem with. We put the motion
forward to deal with some of the money that is being wasted by
the government. We are not asking a lot. We are asking that $1.5
billion out of the $2.8 billion the government has frittered
away, given away or the $1 billion from HRD, be put into health
care and education. Members across party lines recognize an
urgent cash infusion is needed.
The health minister likes to talk about innovation, ideas and
improving our health are system. That is all very well but the
fact is that those beautiful words are not going to put a single
patient into a hospital bed. It is not going to give patients
the care they require. They are only words. The health minister
on March 17 said in the House:
It is obvious that the status quo, the current situation is
unacceptable. One can see the problems that exist everywhere:
waiting lists, overcrowded emergency rooms, shortages of doctors
and particularly certain specialists, and shortages of nurses.
We all agree that those are part of the problems but none of the
words coming out of the health minister's mouth are going to
actually solve those problems. That is a real tragedy.
1620
This is not an academic exercise. It is a matter of life and
death for all the people who rely on their publicly funded health
care system to get the care they require.
That is why we hope the government will support the motion. It
will give health care professionals, hospitals and other
caregivers the urgent and emergent financial resources today. It
will help them care for at least some of the people who are on
extended waiting lists, who are suffering today. We hope the
government will deal with that.
Part of the issue of solving a problem is to understand what the
problem is. Looking into the crystal ball and at the situation
today, we see that there are more expensive technologies, an
aging population and the supply and demand of resources will
widen as time passes. As time passes it will get wider and
wider.
The people who will suffer are those who depend on our publicly
funded health care system, i.e., the poor and middle class
because they do not have an option. The system which they have
come to believe is the best health care system in the world
unfortunately may not be there for them when they need it.
Numerous examples across the country demonstrate that.
Another situation we ought to realize is that if we stand and
say we defend the Canada Health Act and say nothing more, then we
really are being disingenuous. All five principles of that act,
which are good principles, are being violated across the country.
How do we make sure that we have a Canada Health Act that ensures
accessible and affordable health care in a timely fashion for all
people in the country regardless of the amount of money they
have?
That in essence is what the Canada Health Act is all about. It
was never meant to be all things to all people. The people who
put it together recognized very clearly that it is an
unsustainable act in and of itself. That is why the provinces
and many medical associations disagreed with it and opposed it
when it was put together but it was rammed through by the
government of the day. I think they meant well to do it because
the principles are good. We would like to ensure that the basis
of those principles will be pushed forward.
What do we need to do? We need to recognize that the Canada
Health Act is a permissive and inclusive document that involves
freedom of choice. That is what it was meant to be and we ought
to go back to that rather than ensure it is a punitive measure.
When we talk about funding, one-third of all funds come from
private services. We must recognize that today in 2000 there is a
two tier system in the country. The people who cannot afford the
drugs, the physio or the home care do not get it. Those who
cannot afford the dental care which was excluded cannot get it.
It is all very important for people's health care.
Let us look at ways in which we can have a sustainable health
care act for all people. Some money needs to be put in. We
recognize we have a finite pie. That is why this motion came
about.
Let us look at building a new Canada Health Act that takes the
wonderful principles of the original act and ensures that the
affordable, accessible and comprehensive health care system for
central services that is portable for all people will be there.
That is eminently doable.
Let us ensure that the feds and the provinces sit down and talk.
It is a great mistake for the Prime Minister to say to the
provinces, “We are not going to talk”. I think the Prime
Minister's pollster, Mr. Marzolini made it very clear that the
government is vulnerable on the issue of health care. The Prime
Minister must call together his Minister of Health and his
provincial counterparts to sit together and deal with specific
aspects of health care today.
The issue of prevention needs to be discussed. In 1997 the
House passed a motion concerning the national headstart program.
That program which extends across justice, health care and HRD
would be incredibly cost effective for the taxpayer if it were
implemented. It would give children the basic necessities
required in order to be self-actualized individuals and to become
productive members of society. It has been proven to work. The
Minister of Labour was a champion of it early on. She has done
incredible work. It would save billions of taxpayers' dollars and
would improve the health and welfare of Canadians from coast to
coast.
We need to talk about how we can develop new ways of funding to
ensure that private services do not weaken the public system but
rather strengthen it. It is a reality today.
Let us make sure that we do not have an American style health
care system.
1625
One of the problems in the debate today is that people are
saying that if it is not the Canada Health Act, then it must be
an American style health care system. It is completely
disingenuous to say that the whole debate on health care distils
down to what we have today in Canada compared to the American
style health care system. That is bunk.
We can build the best health care system in the world by using
our own brains, our experience and models that exist around the
world.
We talk about a national drug strategy. What we are doing now
does not work. We need to look at models in northern Europe and
innovative models in other parts of the world that have brought
together work treatments. They ensure that drug abusers are off
the streets and become employable members of society so that
their drug problems, their medical problems, can be treated.
Lastly is the issue of medical manpower. This country has a
shortage of over 500 doctors a year. We are going to hit a brick
wall in the near future. We will not have enough physicians.
With respect to the nursing situation there will be a lack of
112,000 nurses in the next 12 years.
I ask members on the other side to reflect on this critical
situation. A brick wall is on the horizon and we are going to
slam right into it if we do not address the situation right away.
In closing I ask members of all political parties to support
this motion. It is a fair motion which will put $1.5 billion
back into the system for health and education. It will give the
provinces some urgent funding for these two critically important
programs.
We are not asking for new money. We are asking that it be taken
away from areas where the government has demonstrated a misuse of
funds. We are asking that it be put into something that the
public wants and which would be very helpful to members and
people across this great country of ours.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have a two part question for the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
The first part is in respect to his suggestion of two tier
health care. He has been up front about this. He says that yes,
there should be one tier for those who can afford to buy their
way into it, a private health care system for those who can
afford to buy their way into that, parallel to the public health
care system. Of course we know that this would ultimately destroy
the very fundamental principle of medicare, which is that one
does not jump to the front of the queue based on the size of
one's pocketbook.
The member has been very clear on that. I am not sure that all
of his colleagues have agreed with him on that, but certainly he
wants to run for leader of whatever the name of the party is, the
Reform Party or some other manifestation, the new Canadian
alliance, or CCRAP, or whatever it might be. He wants to run for
the leadership of the party based on that principle.
As a doctor the member must surely recognize that in a time of
shortages and scarcity in health care resources, and the member
has talked about a shortage of nurses, a shortage of doctors,
shortages of resources in the public health care system, that if
we drain that already starved system of resources, if doctors are
going into his private clinics, if nurses are going into the
private clinics that the good doctor is prescribing, surely that
will cause the public health care system to erode. It will
weaken that system which is exactly what we saw in the United
Kingdom.
Second and very briefly, does the member not recognize and
understand that under the provisions of NAFTA, if we open up
health care in Alberta under bill 11 to private health care
providers as Ralph Klein is suggesting, that this will then mean
that private health care providers will have access under NAFTA
right across Canada? If we deny them that access they will be
able to challenge under the provisions of NAFTA. They will be
entitled to massive compensation under the provisions of NAFTA.
This too will lead to the destruction of our universal health
care system.
How can he stand and say that on the one hand he believes in
medicare when on the other hand he is supporting a two tier
health care system that will destroy universal health care in
this country?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I am extremely happy the
hon. member from the NDP asked that question because he is wrong
on a number of counts, but he has also recognized the fact that
we do have scarcity within our system.
We have a lack of resources. Somehow we have to ensure that a
publicly funded health care system is going to have the resources
to do the job.
That is the bottom line. We have to put patients first. We have
to put patients over politics.
1630
First, the hon. member should recognize the scarcity which he
articulated. There are not resources in the public system right
now to do the job. Second, the situation will get a lot worse
for the reasons I mentioned in my speech. Third, he has to
recognize that today in Canada 30% of the services are provided
by private carriers. We have a two tier system today.
My objective is to make sure the private services that are out
there will strengthen the public system and not weaken it. I do
not want an American system. I do not want a British system and
I do not think we should have an Australian system. All those
systems have distinct flaws. However I will speak to the hon.
member about how a parallel system, if done properly, could
actually strengthen the system.
He raised a very good question about manpower. I would refer to
the aspect of ensuring that medical professionals must spend 40
hours a week within the public system. If that is done, it is
ensured that the best specialists, doctors and nurses stay in the
public system for at least 40 hours a week, as opposed to the
system we have today where sadly many of them are going south of
the border to be lost completely.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member from Esquimalt
talked about the importance of health care and education.
Canadians reflect that and the government has demonstrated that
commitment last year with $11.5 billion to health care and this
year with another $2.5 billion to the CHST.
The member opposite gave an example of nurses. In the province
of Ontario where the health care system underwent severe
restructuring the Ontario government laid off 10,000 nurses. Then
a couple of years later it said that it did not have enough
nurses and would have to hire some of them back. The budget of
the province of Ontario for health shows a slight increase, but
most of it is for restructuring costs. How can the member
opposite talk about putting more funding into a system that is
already in need of some repair managerially?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I do not dispute that
management structural issues have to be dealt with. The
population over the age of 65 will double in the next 20 years.
Some 70% of health care is spent on those people with more
expensive medical technology. My colleague on the other side
knows very well that gap will widen dramatically.
Yes, some management changes have to be made. Yes, streamlining
has to occur, but those changes are only minor in terms of the
cost savings. The amount of money that will be required to pay
for all that we ask, including home care, drugs and a litany of
other issues, far exceeds that which exists in the pockets of the
federal or provincial coffers.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, after listening to the debate today, one really wonders
where we start in this story. From my point of view the fact is
that Canadians think that the health care system needs change. I
as one Canadian and all of my colleagues believe the same. Before
I go very far, though, I want to make clear that I am sharing my
time with the hon. member for Mississauga South, a very eloquent
speaker. I want to make sure that he gets his time in.
Every Canadian believes that the health care system is in
disarray. We have heard in Ontario, the wealthiest province in
Canada, of people sitting in hallways unable to get service or to
get a hospital room. We have heard of a shortage of doctors. We
have seen small communities that do not have doctors. We have
seen emergency rooms overloaded and unable to handle the calls
coming in. We have seen flu epidemics and the doctors system
unable to deal with that.
We at the federal level have been very concerned about that,
particularly just after we decided to transfer $11.5 billion more
to the provinces so that they could deal with these emergency
situations. It is my understanding that many of those dollars
ended up in the coffers of the Ontario government.
1635
The Ontario government saw fit to take the money and spend a bit
of it. It put $700 million into a bank account to raise interest
rather than deal with the emergency for which the money was set
aside. It drew the money out of the federal account and put it
in a bank account to raise interest. When we are worried about
an emergency we should deal with the public fairly and meet its
needs.
As a result I think it made many of us on this side of the House
wake up. We woke up to the fact that the provinces run the
health care system. They control the hospitals and medical
spending. They control the institutions that train doctors. They
have an opportunity to move an agenda which they are not doing.
My colleagues across the way are suggesting that we should
transfer $1.5 billion from training areas and put it into health
care. I would guess that is an honourable approach if $1.5
billion will solve the problem.
Many of us on this side of the House think there is another
solution. We must sit down with the provinces to look at the
problems in health care. We must decide how to train more
doctors. We must decide how to provide more hospital beds. We
must decide how research can take place.
The provinces are asking the federal government not to get
involved in their administration. It is a tragic mess. The
government will be blamed for not giving the provinces enough
money, but they do not want to work with us in providing a system
that will work across the country.
We on this side of the House believe very strongly that it is
not just a money issue. It is far more than a money issue. It
is an issue of proper planning and changing our approach. It is
an issue of dealing with home care. It is an issue of dealing
with drugs. It is an issue of dealing with doctors. All these
issues must be discussed on a fair basis with the federal
government, which is funding a tremendous amount of these costs.
Yet once we turn the dollar over to the provinces we lose total
control. We have no control at all.
Before we turn more money over I think it is critical that we
sit down with the provinces to develop long term plans that will
make sure Canada is going in a safe direction. We cannot look at
the Ralph Kleins of this world who are creating their own
disasters. They are pushing for privatization in the health care
system which will inevitably leave the rich with the service and
the poor with no service. We all know this.
We have been fighting the right wing element in the country for
50 years over these kinds of issues which says that we should
give the service to the rich; if they can pay for it, let them
pay for it. Then what does the poor get? What remains. No,
that is not fair.
The Harris government is sending people for cancer treatment to
the United States instead of spending the $700 million that is in
the account on proper materials to provide this care. Harris is
not a person to be trusted in this business. The frank fact is
that our health minister has to sit down and work out a plan.
Let me turn to the Reform motion. It is an interesting one.
Reformers are suggesting that we should take $1.5 billion and put
it into health care. They are also suggesting that the $2.5
billion in the budget was not enough. The total money they are
asking us to put in the budget for health care is $4 billion.
It was interesting to read the Reformer's solution 17 in their
prebudget recommendations.
They suggested that spending only increase by $1 billion in all
programs in Canada. In other words, why after the election when
people are talking about health care are they suddenly saying
that we should spend $4 billion on health care alone when before
the budget came out they had a position that the total spending
on all programs in Canada increase by $1 billion? It does not
make sense.
1640
They asked for increased spending on the RCMP, increased
spending on defence and increased spending on almost every
federal program. They were asking us to put money here, put
money there and put money over here. Now they are saying put $4
billion into health care when their whole approach was a $1
billion total spending increase in Canada. That appears to be a
pretty big two-face to me.
Let us stop to think about the positions Reformers take. They
come back week after week saying that their constituents told me
to do this so they are jumping over here. Long term planning is
something Reformers have never done, have never adequately faced
the demands of and will never do accurately. That is why the
Reform Party will never be the government of the country.
Reformers bounce from pillar to post. They change with the drop
of a hat. They never stay consistent with any of their policies,
and yet they say that as somebody changes their mind their
policies will change as well.
I have difficulty with what Reformers are proposing today. I
have difficulty with one of my colleagues across the way stating
that we have not put money into health care. Our total dollar
spending in 1993-94 when we took government was $37 billion. This
year with all expenditures put together it will be $39 billion.
We have increased spending in health care and education by $2
billion since we have taken office. We cut initially but all the
extra transfers coming back have increased that budget.
There is a twisting of the truth, and that is too bad. The
reality is that federal and provincial governments need to sit
down to work out the health problem in the country, and not do it
by just sending money to the provinces.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened closely to what the hon. member had to say.
He tried to take credit for what the government has done in terms
of spending. I would like to know whether the hon. member will
take credit for the slashing of the $25 billion back in 1993 when
his government came to office.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to
answer that question. Reform Party members used to be Tories,
Conservatives. I remember Brian Mulroney led them. They were
here in the House. They had the same right wing agenda then as
they have today. They said day after day the Liberals tax and
spend. That right wing party with its counterpart over there
increased our debt three times in an eight year period. When
they came in the debt was $168 billion. When they left it was
over $500 billion.
Are we proud of cutting? Darn right, we are proud of cutting,
because it had to be done. If we did not make the cuts, my
children, my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren would have
to pay for the overspending. It had to be done and there is no
question about it.
1645
The reality is that the folks across the way say one thing but
do something different. They say “We are going to get the
economy rolling correctly”. Everybody knows that it was not the
Reform Party that had anything to do with straightening out the
economy; it was good, solid Liberal policy. We straightened out
the economy and now I am proud to be in the position of being
able to make Canadian lives better.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
wondering where the government member is getting his numbers. We
know full well the health side of the Canada health and social
transfer has been underfunded to the tune of $30 billion since
the Liberals came to power.
This year, a meagre $2.4 billion was announced for the whole of
Canada. This money will be held in trust and spent over the next
three years.
I believe we do not have the same numbers. It all depends on the
analysis one is looking at.
If the situation is really that bad in health care, the thing to
do is not so much putting more money in it as doing it in a
different way from before. We need to put money in health care
over a five year period, as the Bloc Quebecois suggested, we
need stable funding.
Every Quebec leader, including the president of the federation
of physicians, is calling for the restoration of health and
social transfers to their previous level. This is a far cry from
the $2.4 billion the government allocated in the last budget.
What we are demanding is $4.2 billion a year, times five, which
is at the most $21 billion.
Since the liberal government came to power, help to the
provinces in the areas of health, education and income security
has relentlessly been cut.
Quebec ministers and the other provincial ministers had asked
for a Canada social transfer to fund health. They had asked for
more stable funding, instead of the iffy funding we are being
offered with money held in trust for the provincial governments
to spend.
It is very difficult for a government to plan good management
when the Liberal government makes such cuts.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Madam Speaker, the numbers I have come
from official government documents. If the member has different
numbers, she had better read the documents and get the proper
numbers.
When we talk about cash transfers we are not talking about ad
hoc programs. We put $11.5 billion last year into the budget to
help the provinces with their financial situations, to put money
toward emergencies and to solve problems. We added to that $1.2
billion this year. If we combine the $11.5 billion and $1.2
billion we end up with a huge increase over a two year period
which is in the neighbourhood of 25%.
It is important to realize that no member on this side of the
House has said that is the limit. The people on this side of the
House have said “We have to plan”. We have to work with the
provinces, which control the health budgets. We have to make
certain that the dollars going in are utilized for the services
Canadians need. That is important.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in the debate on a motion which
recommends that the government transfer $1.5 billion from HRDC to
the CHST. It is an interesting motion because it brings to the
table two very important subject matters.
First, I want to comment on the HRDC side of the equation. When
this issue first came to the House there were a lot of numbers
being thrown around. As time has gone on the numbers have been
refined substantially.
I watched with interest a press conference with HRDC officials
who were answering questions about the so-called 37 flagged files
which had problems. Being a chartered accountant and having
headed up an internal audit department in a large corporation, I
know what is involved in an audit. I know about the planning and
the due care and the checking that is done and the time that is
associated with it.
The HRDC officials described to the media and to Canadians that
the work that had been done with regard to those 37 files was, in
fact, not an audit at all. The reason it was called an audit
report was that it came out of a department called internal
audit. What it was, as they described it, were reports on
visitations by HRDC employees who went to organizations that had
received program funding. They looked at a file and saw what was
or was not there. They had a little bingo card, checked off a
few things and then they were on their way. By any criteria
whatsoever, those were not audits.
1650
The proof that they were not audits was that if audits had been
done they would have made reasonable inquiries to satisfy
the deficiencies they noted.
Subsequent to the flagging of those files, auditors were sent
in. Based on the last report I saw, I understand that audits
have been done on 34 of the 37 files and each and every one of
the deficiencies noted by the visitations have been cleared.
We have to take some care about how we characterize the work
that has been done in the internal audit area with regard to
deficiencies. In fact, the deficiencies were apparent
deficiencies and subsequently proved not to be deficiencies.
I look forward to the final report on the balance of the three
audits to judge for myself whether funds were appropriately or
inappropriately used. I have been assured, and Canadians should
be assured, that in the event any funds which were transferred or
provided to groups or organizations were inappropriately used,
the government always has the option, and will exercise the
option, to recoup the funds which were not spent properly or take
collection actions through legal means. Canadians should have
that assurance.
There are also ongoing RCMP investigations. Some of the work in
other areas has led to questions and allegations have been made.
The appropriate step is to ask the RCMP to do the work, and that
has happened.
It should be pointed out that the allegations of mismanagement
are not against the government. Rather, they are against the
participants or recipients of the moneys. It is very important
for members to understand that the RCMP is looking into
allegations of mismanagement by third parties, not by the
government.
I would like to cite a couple of examples of media spin. One
example was Wal-Mart. There was a big story that Wal-Mart got a
big grant. The facts are that a construction company got a grant
to hire people to work on a construction site. They were
constructing a distribution centre for Wal-Mart, which was going
to have its products shipped through that centre. Wal-Mart did
not get the grant, but it was convenient for the press and others
to suggest that somehow it did. That was not the case.
There was also the case of McGill University. It submitted an
application for $60,000, but it ultimately received $160,000.
That was not because someone arbitrarily decided to give it extra
moneys for some unknown reason. The additional moneys were
advanced to McGill because the program it was proposing, on a
small scale, was an excellent program and it was encouraged to
expand it to provide a broader number of employment opportunities
to people, which raised the amount of the grant to $160,000.
With regard to the McGill file, there also was an item of some
$10,000 which was flagged. It was one of the 37. The proper
documentation was not within the file. Subsequently the auditors
found, to their satisfaction, proper documentation for each and
every penny that McGill was advanced. There is another example
which received quite a bit of play in the press, and yet once all
of the facts were in, once people had done their jobs, the
allegations that were raised were appropriately discharged.
I want to say that at this point I am not passing judgment on
all of the files. Obviously we have not seen all of the
information. However, it appears, with the substantive work that
has already been done, that it is clear the government and HRDC
officials, those important employees, are doing a good job of
protecting the resources of the Canadian taxpayer, because the
government does not have its own money.
1655
I want to shift to the health care side, only because today I
had lunch with Sir George Alleyne, who is an inspiration to a lot
of people because of his work around the world. He was actually
knighted by Queen Elizabeth. We spoke about the importance of
our health care system. I wish he could address this Chamber to
let us know about the state of health care around the world and
how important it is that we have a value system associated with
health care.
I raise this issue about a value system associated with health
care because the National Forum on Health began in 1994 at the
request of the government. Health care experts from across the
country spent two years studying Canada's health care system and
consulting with Canadians about what they wanted from their
health system.
One of their most important observations was that health care
costs had risen disproportionately to the marginal improvement in
health status. They gave the example that from 1975 to 1993 real
per capita health expenditures increased from approximately
$1,100 to $2,000 per capita. That was according to Health Canada
in 1996. They concluded that spending more money on health care
costs does not necessarily lead to better health. That is the
crux of the issue.
The experts which the Parliament of Canada engaged to look at
our health care system came to the conclusion and the direction
that parliamentarians should all be aware that spending more
money does not necessarily translate into better health.
The value question which I am sure Sir George would want to tell
us about has to do with what Canadians want from their health
care system. In looking through the annex documents to the
National Forum on Health I found some interesting points. They
said that an opinion formed with relatively little engagement or
with poor information would be less stable in the long term than
one formed under conditions of high engagement and good
information.
What they were saying was that we have to work together with the
provinces and with Canadians to determine what the value system
is that should be underpinning our health system. It is not
simply a matter of throwing more money at the health care system
and saying “Keep doing what you are doing”. The important
thing is to determine whether we are getting good value for our
money.
I have many more points that I would like to raise, but I will
highlight what Canadians said to the National Forum on Health on
what their various values were for our health care system. The
first and most important was efficiency in the system. Second
was the quality of access. Third was the performance on results.
Fourth was prevention. Fifth was freedom of choice. Sixth was a
compassionate system. And seventh was flexibility within our
health care system.
I believe the important thing for Canadians to know now is that
the Minister of Health has undertaken to meet with his provincial
counterparts to have the dialogue necessary to start the process
of determining how our health care system can be reformed to meet
those values which Canadians hold so dearly. Once those ministers
have agreed, then we will be able to come back to parliament and
determine how we can establish sustainable funding for Canada's
health care system.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga South gave a rather
impassioned defence of HRDC. I can readily understand his
sensitivity with regard to that particular department. However,
the motion, if he would look at it, has nothing to do with HRDC.
It is a general motion and it deals with grants and contributions
from all departments. It concerns a $13.5 billion pot of pork.
It is not all pork. There are probably some useful programs.
However, too much of it is for friends of the party opposite:
SNC-Lavalin, Bombardier, all of the old friends.
By the way, I am not speaking of EDC; I am talking about outright
subsidies. I know the hon. member is well aware of them and
could probably reel them off as fast as I could.
1700
These are parties which over the last eight years have given
some rather substantial amounts of money to the Liberal Party. I
have the numbers here. SNC-Lavalin during the seven years from
1992-99 contributed $295,817. Bombardier during that period
contributed $447,615 to the Liberal Party of Canada.
We do not believe it is fitting or proper that the $13.5 billion
grants pot be further augmented by the $1.5 billion that is
listed in the current budget document to build up the slush. We
say take back that $1.5 billion which has not actually been
allocated for any particular program yet. It is just a big sum
of money which the government wants to give for grants and
contributions. Take that back and give it to health care where it
is really needed and where the people of Canada really want it.
Be a little less generous with this pork-barrelling stuff at
least for a year or two. That is all we are asking. It is a
pretty straightforward motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I wish the member were
aware that what he is saying is that the government has broken
the laws of Canada under the Canada Elections Act with regard to
requiring kickbacks in exchange for moneys. Every member of
parliament is subject to those rules. If there were any strings
attached with votes or any other conditions, they would be
committing a criminal offence. If the member has any evidence of
criminal wrongdoing on behalf of the Government of Canada or any
member of parliament, it is his duty to report it to the Chief
Electoral Officer.
The member mentioned some companies, SNC-Lavalin and Bombardier.
He did not mention Nortel. How about Pasteur-Merieux-Connaught?
Many of these very successful companies have received substantial
amounts of money in grants and contributions from the taxpayers
of Canada. What he did not say is how much they generated in
terms of jobs and new economic growth for Canadians so that more
people are working and paying taxes and have the dignity of work.
For instance, under the technology partnerships,
Pasteur-Merieux-Connaught is now involved in substantive health
research with regard to cancer. Under the technology
partnerships it got a substantial amount of money but it was only
25% of the project funding. It came up with the other 75% and it
provided jobs for some of the top health researchers in Canada
with regard to cancer research.
I believe the member has done a disservice to this place by
giving half the story.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Surrey North.
I am pleased to take part in the debate on the motion which
calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the Canada health
and social transfers by $1.5 billion and to forgo the $1.5
billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this
year's federal budget. It is important to say that we do not
suggest slashing all federal grants and contributions, only that
we forgo the increase contained in this year's budget.
The government must listen to the people. Health care is on the
minds of all Canadians. How many times have we heard that health
care is the number one issue? I want to concentrate on the state
of health care in the province of Manitoba and my riding of
Dauphin—Swan River.
Canadians must not forget that we are talking about the mess our
health care system is in because of what the Liberal government
did in 1993. We must not forget that it was the Liberal
government that slashed $25 billion from the health and social
transfer when it first came to power. It is ironic that the
Liberal government wants to fix the health care system, yet it
was the same Liberal government that created the problem.
1705
Today federal cash transfers cover just 10 cents on the dollar.
In 1997 federal dollars covered 19 cents on each dollar spent on
health care. In fact by 2003-04 the Liberal government will have
slashed out of the health and social transfer a total of $35
billion. Let me paint a picture of how this $25 billion
reduction when the Liberals first came to power affected Manitoba
and my riding of Dauphin—Swan River.
The first thing which occurred was that it forced the province
to look at other ways of cutting its costs. When the money does
not come from the feds, obviously it does not have the money to
spend. People got fired; they lost their jobs. People received
less service. Quite a negative situation was created and all the
people of Manitoba were very upset. Beds closed and hospital
services were reduced.
The province did not know what to do. It reorganized the whole
system. It cut out all the existing boards, put them into huge
new boards and then had the audacity to make political
appointments to those boards, which did not do our former Tory
government in Manitoba any good.
The whole issue of health care helped the current NDP government
get into power. Health care of all things. That is because it
was very important in the minds of all Manitobans and certainly
was important to the residents of my riding of Dauphin—Swan
River.
I spent a lot of time working on the health care issue. Being a
municipal leader at that time I had lots of town hall meetings. I
organized a provincial meeting of municipalities and the
aboriginal community so they could sit down and discuss what the
issues were and try to get the provincial government to deal with
all the shortcomings that people had to deal with. Obviously
nothing happened other than that we created a lot of criticism.
The province did not really move in that direction. The problems
still exist today.
At this time I would like to read a letter that I received from
the Regional Health Authorities of Manitoba, Council of Chairs.
This group collectively represents all the health authorities in
the province of Manitoba and wrote me this letter:
The Council of Chairs and Manitoba's Regional Health Authorities
work together to ensure that all Manitoba's residents have the
access they need to high quality health services.
As part of our commitment to ensuring access to needed
healthcare services, the Regional Health Authorities of Manitoba
is a member of the Canadian Healthcare Association (CHA), the
national federation of provincial and territorial hospital and
health associations. Through its provincial and territorial
members, the CHA federation represents over 1,000 organizations
covering the broad continuum of care. These organizations employ
approximately one million healthcare providers and serve
Canadians across the country. They are governed by trustees who
act in the public interest. CHA's mission is to improve the
delivery of health services in Canada through policy development,
advocacy and leadership. The provincial and territorial members
of the CHA federation are committed to ensuring that all
Canadians have access to comparable healthcare services wherever
they live.
Every day, members of RHAM see the serious effects that cuts in
federal transfers are having on our national healthcare system.
The significant decline of public confidence in our health care
system is compelling evidence that Canadians feel the system will
not be there for them and their families when they need it.
Federal/provincial/territorial co-operation to build a truly
accessible, integrated client-centred continuum of care is
essential to restore the confidence of all Canadians in our
healthcare system.
Provincial and territorial members of CHA federation believe
that the federal government must act to ensure access to
comparable health services for all Canadians regardless of where
they live. The CHA brief presented to the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Finance recommended that the federal budget
focus on health care by:
1. Raising the cash floor of the Canada Health and Social
Transfer by $2.5 billion immediately.
2. Applying a growth factor of the cash component of the CHST.
3. Adding $1 billion to launch a national home and community
care program to improve access to the broader continuum of care.
It is essential that, as our healthcare system adapts to change,
the devolution of resources away from hospitals must not imperil
access to the needed healthcare services that they have
traditionally provided.
Health reform must include investment in and augmentation of all
parts of the continuum of care as we work toward an integrated,
client-centred continuum of care. Adequate, sustainable federal
funding and federal/provincial/territorial co-operation are both
essential for this to happen.
1710
Today we have heard members say that throwing money at the
health care system is not the issue and perhaps not the solution.
But the reality is that the money taken out of the system back
in 1993 caused the problem we have today. Therefore money is one
of the solutions. No doubt we all agree that people need to sit
down and talk and work collectively to look at all the options,
including the options being expressed in the Alberta legislature
at this time.
It is ironic that people do pay for their health care. There
are lots of services. In fact the CHA indicated there are many
medically necessary services in Canada that must be paid for out
of pocket by the people who require them. A recent report by the
Canadian Institute for Health Information noted the shift from
public to private spending for health care in Canada which has
been going on for years is steadily increasing past the 70:30
ratio. The OECD standard is 75:25. This passive privatization
of our health care system is a reality of health care today in
Canada and not just a possibility of the future. It has worrisome
implications for access to needed health care services for some
people.
The current problem that we are experiencing is because of the
$25 billion reduction by the Liberal government back in 1993 when
it came to power. Government members have to recognize and
accept that fact. It is time to put more money back into the
health care system. Canadians deserve it.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
Dauphin—Swan River for his remarks and the very interesting
readings he made.
I found it interesting that he talked about the need for more
money in the health care system. Certainly the government has
restored all the transfers. We could go over the same old stuff.
No matter how often we say it, the opposition parties will say
that we have not, but in fact the CHST has been totally restored
to the 1993 levels.
We had to reduce the federal transfers to eliminate a $42
billion deficit. In fact if we had not dealt with federal
transfers which consisted of something in the order of 40% of our
total federal budget, it would have been very difficult if not
impossible for us to eliminate the deficit completely. We did
reduce the transfers but they have now been completely restored.
Let me give the example of the province of Ontario. The Ontario
government under Mike Harris reduced income taxes by 30%.
Reducing taxes is another good agenda item. We have been doing
more of that now that we have topped up health care. If we look
at the Harris Conservative government in Ontario, the first
reduction in taxes it made was 30% and then it has gone on since
then. If the Ontario government had reduced taxes by 25% instead
of 30%, just five percentage points, it could have totally
restored and topped up the federal transfer reductions that the
government passed on to the province of Ontario.
When we talk about where the priorities are, rather than move
from 30% tax cuts to 25%, the province of Ontario decided to let
health care slide somewhat. Now it is coming to us and saying
that we should be putting more money back in when it is actually
still sitting on money that we gave it last year which has earned
interest. About half a billion dollars is still sitting there
not being utilized.
I would ask the member to reflect on that and maybe he could
comment on it.
Mr. Inky Mark: Madam Speaker, today we heard the debate
over who is responsible for the deficit and the national debt.
Let me quote a few numbers here. Both the Liberals and the
Progressive Conservatives were responsible.
1715
Back in 1972 our national debt was $16 billion. When the
Liberals came to power in 1983, the national debt was $160
billion. In other words, it climbed from $16 billion to $160
billion. The Mulroney Tories came to office in 1984 and by the
time they left in 1993, the national debt had moved from $160
billion to $489 billion. The Liberals came back to power in 1993
and they took the national debt from $489 billion up to $600
billion in 1997.
I know it has been reduced since that time but the Liberals are
reneging on their responsibility for fiscal problems in Canada.
The deficit is one of those problems, especially when we spend
more than we take in. The cause of that is that we have borrowed
too much money over the years.
It is good news that we are balancing our annual budget but our
national debt is still something like 71% of our GDP. It is
still too high. Until we get that in order, health care and all
other services will lose a lot of money. If we put $42 billion
of our interest into our health care annually, everybody in the
country would be happy.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I need clarification from the Reform Party. What
exactly is it proposing with respect to an alternative health
care model?
We have heard statements from the leader of the Reform Party
calling very explicitly for a two-tier health care system, one
for the rich and one for everybody else. We have heard the
leader of the Reform Party call for a user fee. We have heard
the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca call for a parallel
private, two-tier health care system. The member for Macleod has
called for a system that allows access to both core and
non-health care systems available outside medicare.
Which one of these positions is the current position of the
Reform Party?
Mr. Inky Mark: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier,
individuals do pay for things such as eyeglasses, dental care,
pharmacare, special shoes and special appliances. Public health
care does not provide these things. It would be unrealistic to
expect the public purse to pay for every service that an
individual requires in the area of health.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to speak to this motion. The motion
reads as follows:
That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the
Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the
$1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this
year's federal budget.
All Canadians know that Canada's health care system is beyond
sick. It is in a crisis. I believe there is one very fundamental
reason for this.
From 1993 to 1999, health care costs have risen by $14 billion
per year, or 19%, from $72 billion per year to $86 billion. In
that same period, the cash transfers from the federal government
for health and education fell by $6.3 billion per year from $18.8
billion to $12.5 billion. That is a drop of 34%. That is a cost
increase of 19% and a decrease in federal transfers by 34%. Is it
any wonder that we have a problem?
The government trumpets that it plans to put a cumulative total
of $12 billion back into CHST over the next four years. Is that
not special? What it fails to tell Canadians is that since it
came to power, it has slashed a cumulative total of $25 billion
from health and social transfers. By 2003-04 that cumulative
total is expected to be about $35 billion.
The Liberals like to boast about the increase in tax point
transfers but those points have remained unchanged since they
were first introduced in 1977 while the discretionary cash
portion has been slashed.
1720
In 1977 federal cash transfers paid 19 cents of every health
care dollar spent. By 1997 that was down to just 10 cents and
still the government wants to tell the provinces what to do.
What are some of the realities of the Canadian health care
system today? It is a system based on a 1960 socialized, state
run model which has failed to evolve to address the realities of
the 21st century. I am sure Canadians will be happy to know that
our health care system is rated 23rd out of 29 countries in the
OECD. I am sure they will also be just thrilled to know that
there are only two other countries with similar health care
systems to Canada's: Cuba and North Korea. That is wonderful
company.
The current system is just not sustainable and the government
knows it. Again there are some very simple reasons for this. In
1999, 12.5% of the population of Canada was over the age of 65.
The projection for 2006 is 21.4%. That is one in five Canadians
over the age of 65. Add to that the fact that Canadians of my
age are on the leading edge of the baby boomer bulge and we will
not reach age 65 until roughly 2012. Simply put, Canadians are
living longer and the population is getting older. Again the
current system is just not sustainable.
What about the costs related to new technologies? What about
the costs of training people to work with those new technologies?
Even if we succeed in training the required number of doctors,
nurses, support staff and medical technicians, will we be able to
keep them in Canada with of our outrageous taxes? That is a
whole other debate.
I am afraid we have seen only the beginning of technological and
professional shortages. The result has been an increase in the
length of waiting lists by 43% from 1993 to 1998 and that shows
no signs of going down.
What is the government's answer? In 1999-2000 CHST cash was
increased by $2 billion, still short by $4.3 billion, still only
23% of what it was when it took power. Then, in the 2000-01
budget, it allocated just $1 billion more for health care, even
though the budgetary surplus was $11.9 billion on January 31,
2000. At the same time this budget alone provides for an
increase of $1.5 billion in federal grants and contributions, a
one year increase of 11%.
The motion we are debating today calls for the government to
forgo that increase in grants and contributions and to direct the
funds instead into health care. It does not suggest that it
slash federal grants and contributions, only that it forgo the
increase.
It would appear that one of the biggest winners in this year's
increase derby is, surprise, surprise, Human Resources
Development Canada. Good old HRDC. For the last five fiscal
years in a row, the Liberals have increased grants and
contributions at HRDC. In 1996-97 they were $2.84 billion. This
year they are expected to total $3.17 billion, an increase of
12%.
One would think that given the events of the past few weeks, the
government would show some respect for taxpayers and, at the very
least, hold the line on grants and contributions for this
department until there is a full accounting of past moneys spent.
The controversy surrounding the transitional jobs fund alone is
reason enough. The TJF was $100 million per year. Its
successor, the Canada jobs fund, has been increased to $110
million, while its unemployment criteria has been relaxed from
12% to 10%.
I am sure that Canadians would like some explanation as to just
how it is that the Prime Minister's riding alone got more in TJF
and CJF money than the entire provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan
and Alberta, as was reported in the National Post of March
16. I am also sure that Canadians, Quebecers especially, would
like some explanation as to how it is that the Prime Minister's
riding received four times as much in TJF and CJF grants as the
average Quebec riding. The TJF and CJF programs are not the only
sources of controversy.
Last week I raised a question in the House regarding a complaint
received in my office. A few weeks ago, Mr. Kurtis DeSilva,
president of the Metis nation in B.C., and Joe Lanza, a former
provincial HRDC compliance officer, came to see me in my Surrey
office with a pile of documentation relating to the alleged
mismanagement of HRDC funds by the Metis Council of British
Columbia, funds earmarked for employment and training programs in
the Metis community. Among the complaints was one having to do
with the use of job creation money by a council director to
attend law school in Toronto. In another case, HRDC funds were
allegedly used to send the son of another council director to
India to gain life experience.
Dan Ferguson, a journalist with the Surrey North Delta News
Leader, has been investigating this issue extensively. He
has quoted a number of individuals who complained about
questionable training programs, programs which in their view
were, in the words of one, a pitiful waste.
1725
A cursory audit by HRDC uncovered almost $170,000 which could
not be accounted for. The RCMP said that it did not have the
resources to investigate even though it acknowledged the
complaints.
Yesterday, at the Liberal Party convention, a British Columbia
Metis member of the party said in an interview that there was a
real problem. Yet the ministry has refused to do a forensic
audit. In fact the minister even refused to answer my question
last week.
In another case, the Surrey Aboriginal Cultural Society has
brought to my attention that the aboriginal residents of Surrey
have received no employment and training funds since 1998 even
though the Sto:lo nation was contracted by HRDC to provide the
funds. I have written the minister for an explanation but to date
have heard nothing back.
In still another case, two women complained to my office after
an HRDC contractor placed them into courses which they had no
hope of completing due to a lack of prerequisite training. The
spotlight is currently on HRDC. One must suspect that there are
similar stories buried in other departments, many of which have
had no internal audit done on grants and contributions since
January 1, 1994.
Rather than attacking the provinces, the federal government
should provide leadership by working co-operatively with them to
improve health care. A good place to start would be to forgo any
further increases in grants and contributions and instead direct
those funds toward health care.
I urge all members to support the motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
maybe the member is aware of the research done by the National
Forum on Health. The report came out in early 1997.
One of the key observations in the report was that between 1975
and 1993 the actual spending per capita on health care in Canada
almost doubled from $1,100 to $2,000. However, at the same time
there was no evidence that the level of the quality of health of
Canadians had improved. In other words, the experts concluded
that money alone was not going to be the solution.
Taking that into account and taking the fact that Ontario,
Quebec and Newfoundland all have money from last year that they
have not used, how does the member think this simplistic solution
of transferring an additional $1.5 billion into health care will
actually achieve anything? What evidence does he have?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that
the provinces are starved for cash. Because of the way the
government has cut billions and billions of dollars since it came
to power, the provinces have done what they could to get it back.
I know the waiting list. I know the problems in my own province
and in my own community.
Restoring the cash transfer is only part of the solution but it
is a part that has to be done now. Instead of taking the money
and firing it off into what a lot of my constituents are coming
to me and saying are wasteful programs of grants and
contributions, this money has to be invested somewhere where the
people want it, which is in health care.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech on this very
important matter. I understand that the Reform Party motion
tries to focus on two issues of importance to the Reform Party
and certainly of importance to all Canadians. However, my concern
is that by linking the two we do not necessarily have a clear
indication from the Reform Party about the immediate restoration
of transfer payments for health care.
Regardless of where the money comes from, is the Reform Party
prepared to commit, as a minimum, the $1.5 billion in transfer
payments to be restored? Is it also prepared to go even further
and acknowledge that there is currently a $3.3 billion gap in
terms of transfer payments that were cut by the government in
1995? Would Reformers also agree to support us in holding the
government to account for that money?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Madam Speaker, I do not think we would
have brought this motion forward if we were not prepared to
commit to say that $1.5 million should be transferred into the
CHST.
1730
As for the other question, it is something we obviously have to
look at. People are asking that health care be restored. Right
now one way we see doing that is by getting rid of the waste,
putting the money that is being wasted up front and doing
something with it to restore health care to where the community
wants it to be.
We acknowledge the gap that still exists. That is obviously
something that has to be considered for the future. Right now
the money that is going to waste, as far as we see it or as far
as my constituents are telling me, has got to be put where it
going to do some good, and that is into health care.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, one thing the member opposite
talked about was grants and contributions which is an accounting
mechanism for our accumulating expenditure and for where it is
going to be spent.
The member for Calgary—Nose Hill this morning, the lead Reform
speaker on the topic, mentioned that she did not think that the
HRDC grants and contributions needed to be touched. It was the
others and the increments in the new budget.
Maybe the member would comment. Of the new grants and
contributions in the budget, would he cut the $900 million to the
Canada Foundation for Innovation, the $900 million for the new
research chairs across Canada and the $700 million to ensure that
we have clean air, water and prepare for reducing our greenhouse
gases? Are those the kinds of initiatives he would cut out of
the budget?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Madam Speaker, there are any number of
areas where we can see waste and not necessarily the programs the
hon. member talked about. There are far too many areas of waste
in the country.
I just rattled off a few of them which came from my
constituents. They saw $170,000 unaccounted for in programs and
training money that should have gone to the Metis community in
British Columbia. That is only the tip of the iceberg. There is
much waste in the country. If we could take care of the waste,
do the proper forensic audits, find out where the waste is and
cut it, I am sure there would plenty of money left over to
restore the health care system to where it should be.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with a colleague. It is my pleasure today to
join this debate because it is a welcome opportunity for members
of the government to reaffirm our philosophy in favour of a
balanced approach to social policy in Canada.
Unlike members across the way, we believe that government has an
important and necessary role to play in building the kind of
society that cares about its people, not one that cares just for
the well-off but one that cares for all Canadians including those
groups within society that might need special help.
We believe in an approach that combines both grants and
contributions and the Canada health and social transfer as a
responsible balanced way to fund the social policy needs of
Canadians. We do not believe in the kind of dogmatic all or
nothing approach the opposition motion proposes.
Our approach to responsible social policy also recognizes the
need to balance the jurisdictional concerns of the provinces and
territories with the federal government's obligation to meet
national social policy objectives. Our position is that both the
federal and provincial levels have important roles to play. That
is why we have substantially increased transfers to the provinces
under the Canada health and social transfer. That is why we are
also increasing funding for grants and contributions programs
that meet specialized social policy needs throughout Canada. We
understand the need for this balanced approach and so do
Canadians.
Here is a good example. It is a quote from a letter written by
the executive director of the Child Care Connection of Nova
Scotia. It refers to a program that supports child care research
and says:
Child care is the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories,
but this research and development program is a significant means
by which the federal government can provide leadership in
increasing the quality of services and support the development of
an infrastructure to deliver child care services to families in
Canada.
This letter says it well. There is a role for both levels of
government in social policy. This letter shows how important the
federal role can be in contributing directly to the needs of
Canadians.
It also illustrates the kind of support we have for this approach
from all across the country.
1735
I have another example from the Learning Disabilities
Association of Canada. The president and executive director of
the organization have written a letter to the hon. minister. The
letter talks about the support that HRDC provides to help persons
with disabilities. The writers urge the minister to remain
steadfast in pursuit of her mandate.
These are not government MPs I am quoting. These are caring
Canadians who work with individuals that need are help. These
people look to the Government of Canada and they recognize the
value and importance of our program in providing it.
A motion like the one before us today will work against the
interest of people like these. I am tempted to say shame on
those who want to take back funding earmarked for grants and
contributions, but I assume that those who propose motions like
this one do not understand the role of federal grants and
contributions in our system.
They should know that all across Canada these grants are working
in partnership with concerned Canadians to help those who depend
on the government for the support they need. From every part of
the country we hear from people who know just how important
grants and contributions are.
In Edmonton, Alberta, for example, we have heard from the
Chrysalis Society about the value of our help to persons with
disabilities who are trying to find work. We have heard from the
Junction Day Care Centre in the west end of Toronto about how
HRDC funding is improving the quality of child care there. An
organization called the Literacy Partners of Manitoba, based in
Winnipeg, has told us that improving literacy skills awareness
and resources for adults in Canada is vital work for us all.
There are cases like this all across the country. These cases
prompt me to ask the following questions. Would our hon. friends
opposite suggest we cut back on helping to build the literacy
skills as well as the technological skills required for us to
remain competitive in the global marketplace? Should we forget
about making it easier for a person with a disability to find
work and participate fully in Canadian society? Should we stop
funding the work to improve the capacity of our child care
facilities to provide quality care for our children? Of course
we should not, at least not as far as this government is
concerned.
Investing in the development of our human resources is one of
the most important things governments can do, and more important
in this era of globalization than ever before. The government
has no intention of eliminating the valuable support provided by
the grants and contributions program. I doubt if the hundreds of
thousands of Canadians whose lives have been improved because of
our direct support would vote for this motion. I cannot support
it either.
I am proud to be part of a government that shows its willingness
to help Canadians who need us. I am proud to speak in favour of
our grants and contributions programs and the benefits they bring
to hundreds of thousands of individual Canadians who need our
help.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government member left the door open when she said the role
played by grants is not well understood. We just have to look at
the HRDC scandal. The door is too wide open.
And I am going to open it wider still. We know what HRDC grants
are being used for. To benefit Liberal cronies and certain
persons who contribute to the Liberal campaign fund. We know the
Prime Minister downplayed the HRDC scandal saying it only
involved $251, but the more we dig and the deeper we delve, the
more we find. There are some very serious cases. The opposition
parties have pressured the government into calling in the RCMP.
We know these investigations will shed more light on what is
going on in this department.
It is a pity that there was no investigation into all the money
given out by HRDC under seven different programs. It was found
that 87% of project files showed no evidence of supervision, 80
contribution projects had no indication of monitoring for
achievement of expected results, 66% of the files reviewed did
not contain an analysis or a rationale for
recommending or accepting the project, and in 36% of the cases
where the dollar value was increased, the reason for it was not
documented.
The minister tells us that saying no to HRDC programs means that
we do not quite understand the role of grants.
1740
Considering how the CHST money is doled out, giving the
provinces small transfers of $2.4 billion over four years
knowing how hospitals, universities, colleges and CEGEPs are all
badly in need of additional funding, one can wonder what is the
use of federal programs in areas that, often, are not under
federal jurisdiction. We are concerned with the management of
these grants, which are given for purely partisan purposes and
are not based on any long term strategy.
There is also a $305 million program for the homeless in Canada.
That program is tailor made for Ontario and Vancouver, but not
for Quebec. We know it will be very difficult for us to access
these funds.
I am in the middle of a tour on poverty to explain the federal
government's responsibility with regard to the social safety
net. What we are told is that, very often, people do not hear
about the programs, or very little.
I would like to give the parliamentary secretary food for
thought by asking her if she is really serious when she says
parliamentarians do not quite understand the role of federal
grants.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the
opposition member that the department and the government in
general take the results of this audit very seriously. They are
not the only ones who are dismayed by these results. We are
upset about it too. That is why we have ordered a plan to try to
fix administrative issues that have resulted in the papers being
full of this issue for weeks. The minister acknowledges
responsibility. We are not happy about it and we plan to fix it.
Accompanying that there has been an unprecedented release of
information. The member opposite must know that the private
sector also asks for internal audits of its operations. The
difference is that it does not show the public what has been
found in those audits. Instead, the private sector makes a plan
to fix it and it fixes it. That is what we are doing, but
because our taxpayers are interested in the use of their money we
have released 16 binders, about five and a half inches tall each,
full of information to be perfectly clear and transparent about
what it is we are doing and how very serious we are.
The member opposite talks about this as a scandal. I am glad to
have an opportunity to comment on that word. A scandal to me is
when there is a cover-up, something like sex, lies and video
tapes or international spying. The history of this country does
have scandals. This is not one of them. Only in Canada would
lack of administrative controls be called a scandal as has been
pointed out by one of our pre-eminent journalists.
If she thinks there is some connection to partisan purposes,
that is fundraising, as has been alluded to in the House by other
members, I challenge her to make that statement outside the House
because it implies a degree of fraud which we have not found. It
has implications for people's reputations and they would have a
right to defend themselves.
She also refers to the fact that the opposition has referred
cases to the RCMP. After audits and after forensic audits we
have referred cases to the RCMP. The opposition is not alone in
its virtue.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if I might, I would like to pick up on the comments from my
colleague who was addressing the issue of whether or not there is
a scandal. I think there is.
1745
I think there is really quite a remarkable scandal in this
issue. The scandal surrounds the attempts by members opposite to
try to portray the programs run by Human Resources Development
Canada as being somehow corrupt. If members opposite want to
chirp about this issue they should go to their HRDC offices.
We know that many of them have not taken the time to do this.
They should go to their HRDC offices and meet with the men and
women who deliver these programs. They should get down and dirty
and meet with the people who are being helped by these programs.
They should roll up their sleeves and talk to disabled Canadians
who are being assisted by HRDC funding. They should roll up
their sleeves and talk to the young people of Canada, whether
they are in entrepreneurial programs, automotive programs,
computer programs, training programs, job finding programs or
require assistance in writing a resume. These are things that
perhaps members opposite take for granted. Many of these people
do not have the facilities or the ability to do these things.
The real scandal here is that the opposition has succeeded in
denigrating these programs. Those members denigrate the good
work that is done on behalf of all Canadians by HRDC staff.
I am not saying there are not problems. The parliamentary
secretary, the minister and the Prime Minister have admitted that
there are indeed administrative problems. But should we throw
out the proverbial baby with the proverbial bath water? That in
essence is what this motion is asking the government to do, to
take the $1.5 billion that is being put into improving access to
these programs and move it to the CHST.
I want to hear members opposite, who I believe have an
understanding of the role of government, speak on this. I have
yet to hear them. What I sense is some kind of Profumo mentality
that somehow they have us on the run.
The damage being done by the daily proliferation during question
period and in the media is not being done to us. It is not being
done to members on this side of the House. It is being done to
young people, the disabled, the people in aboriginal communities,
all of the people who need the help of this government.
One good thing which comes out of a debate like this is that it
draws clear lines in the sand. The Reform motion suggests that
we should take the money out of these programs and put it into
the CHST, simply write another blank cheque. We know that the
mentality of the Reform Party is provincial. It need be
provincial because there are only certain provinces in which it
can get elected. We know that Reform would turn over the entire
health care system. Reform members have called for the
dismantling of the Canada Health Act. They have called for user
fees. They have called for private medicine.
Reform members stand in this place and defend the actions of the
provincial government in Alberta without allowing proper debate.
There may possibly be some things worth looking at in Bill 11.
Again, I would not throw it out entirely. Why do we not discuss
this in a less than partisan atmosphere to find out what kind of
service delivery we should be providing in the areas of health
care?
I received a call from a constituent today who has an 81 year
old mother with cancer who lives in Montreal. He has to make
trips down to see her because she cannot get the service that she
needs in that province delivered by the provincial government.
Should we wash our hands of this? Absolutely not.
We know that we have a federation that requires co-operation.
The federal government collects taxes and redistributes the
wealth around the country to ensure that things such as our
Canada Health Act are upheld. Canadians understand that is the
role of the federal government.
It is also our role to ensure that the provincial governments,
which are indeed the delivery mechanisms for health care, live up
to their requirements under the Canada Health Act to make it
universally accessible and affordable to all Canadians, and to
not allow for two-tier health care. Yet we see the debate. We
understand. Our Minister of Health has said that of course there
are clinics that provide private health care in certain areas
which are perhaps not funded in Ontario through OHIP. We need to
look at them. Are they effective? Do they make sense? Are they
taking away opportunities for Canadians? Without paying extra
user fees or additional funds of some kind, are they taking away
opportunities for all Canadians to access health care? If they
are, that is not the principle that the Liberal government, this
government, and frankly even Conservative governments in the past
have espoused and upheld.
1750
What do we see? We see a request that we simply transfer more
money to the provinces without any kind of agreement or
understanding that the money will be used for that 81 year old
mother of my constituent in Montreal to access better health
care, so that my constituent does not have to take several days
away from his commissioned sales job to make sure his mother is
getting the proper care.
We think that is wrong. However, we understand and Canadians
need to understand that the provincial Government of Quebec, in
this case, has left money on the table. The Mike Harris
government in Ontario has left some $800 million sitting in a
trust account for goodness sake. Why? The answer they gave was
“We weren't ready to draw it down because we might need it more
next year”. What kind of nonsense is that?
I speak from personal experience. My wife's mother is very ill
and needs hospital care on a regular basis. This is a woman who
has breathing problems. We go to a hospital in my community. I
never thought I would see the day when it would be necessary for
my wife to clear the dust off the shelves or the window ledges in
an area that deals with people living on oxygen, living with
emphysema, living with serious problems. There is dust in our
hospitals.
I know that the men and women who work in those hospitals are
overworked. They are working their fingers to the bone. What is
the problem? It seems to me that we have, at least in the
province of Ontario, and I think we have seen it right across
Canada, provincial governments which want to go to their
electorate and say “Aren't we wonderful. We have cut your
taxes”. Meanwhile they increase the debt.
Even the premier of Quebec has recently jumped on the tax cut
band wagon. He is afraid he is going to get left behind. Yet
they cut health care services. Then, lo and behold, they
complain that the nasty old federal government is not giving them
enough money, but we find that they have left it in the bank.
Do Canadians really want us to sign another blank cheque to
allow Premier Bouchard, Premier Harris and Premier Klein to
simply do what they want, to reduce their provincial tax load at
the same time as they cut health care? I think not.
What the debate should really be about is who is delivering
what. How does that 81 year old or how does my mother-in-law get
proper care in the community or in the home? That is what our
health minister is talking about. Instead of denigrating the
great work that people are doing in helping our young people, our
disabled, people who have been laid off through no fault of their
own to deal with this incredible changing economy, instead of
bashing these programs that work, I would think that members in
this place would suggest that we should be having a debate on how
we can continue to support those people who need help and on how
we can better deliver good quality health services that are not
Americanized, that are not privatized and that are not based on
the model that we know the Reform Party prefers.
1755
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question pertains to the member's comment about
wanting a healthy discussion in this place about Bill 11,
something which we have tried to do for some time now.
The member will recall that three times in the House we asked
the Minister of Health to either table his own legal opinion on
Bill 11 or to consider the legal opinions that have been prepared
by other groups. The minister has said on three separate
occasions “Share those documents with the House”. In response,
each and every time we have tried to table the documents we have
been denied permission to do so.
I would therefore ask, given the member's comments, if we could
have unanimous consent today to table two legal opinions
commissioned by the Canadian Union of Public Employees regarding
whether bill 11 is in violation of the spirit and letter of the
Canada Health Act.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps, since it is questions and
comments, we will hear the comment and then I will put the
question to the House. We will try to fit in three questions and
the responses.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, what our Minister of
Health has said is that the government wants to study all
ramifications of the bill in Alberta. That is the responsible
thing to do.
To simply have a knee-jerk reaction and say that it is all good,
as the Reform Party would say, or that it is all bad, as the New
Democrats would say, is irresponsible. We have to analyze bill
11 and find out if indeed it is in violation of the Canada Health
Act. I can tell the member that if it violates one hair of the
Canada Health Act, then Alberta will hear from the federal
government and it will not be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to table
the documents as requested?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and the member who made the
intervention both spoke passionately about the grants helping
people in need. I do not think we would find too much opposition
to those types of grants on this side of the House which actually
help people in need.
I would like the hon. member to clarify how organizations like
Wal-Mart are people in need and if he is willing to passionately
defend those kinds of grants as well.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the classic example of
opposition party members denigrating these grants is the
suggestion that some $45,000 was given to a bowling alley, I
believe, in the Prime Minister's riding.
What they fail to tell is the complete story, that it was a $7
million tourist investment made by the private sector, by the
provincial government, by everybody in the community, and an
additional $45,000 was provided by HRDC. They happened to use it
in the bowling alley. If the member wants to destroy a $7
million project because of that, that is irresponsible. It is
simply not telling the whole story. We cannot say it is a lie.
It is not only not parliamentary to do so, it is also not really
a lie. It is a distortion of the facts to try to perpetrate a
fraud upon the people of the country that somehow we are misusing
those dollars. It is not the truth.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
across the way spoke very eloquently, but I believe I must set
the record straight and put things in perspective.
He said the provinces have to be supervised, otherwise they
might not spend the money they are given for health care the way
it was intended to.
I want to go back to the trust fund. We know full well it was a
trap set for the provinces. They had three years to spend very
small amounts: $2.5 billion over four years.
The member's remarks about health care funding to the provinces
when we know that, since 1993, this government has cut
$30 billion in the transfers to the provinces for health,
education and income security. And they have the nerve to tell
us we do not care about the disadvantaged in our society. They
have the audacity to lecture me.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a
couple of brief points. First, transfer payments are higher now
than they were when the Liberals were elected in 1993. I only
arrived 1997.
They are actually higher. That is a fact. The member can look
at the chart.
1800
The other point is the member ignores the fact that the
provincial governments have some responsibility in this. They
have a responsibility to deliver health care services. What
opposition parties would like us to do is either give it all to
the provinces or in the case of some members, take it away and
let the federal government run all of it.
I do not think either one of those is a satisfactory solution.
We have to work with the provinces to deliver better quality
health care and not do it at the expense of young Canadians who
need our help.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I think the member owes an apology to the House. In
fact the transfer payments in 1993 were $18.8 billion.
The Deputy Speaker: It sounds like a point of debate to
me. I am afraid the hon. member knows that. She will have to
raise that in debate as I know she will want to do.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is important to bring this debate once again back to the
motion that is before the House which says:
That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the
Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the
$1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this
year's federal budget.
I know the member preceding me would not want to have said
something that was not factual so I will correct him. He said
that the motion was to take money out of. It is not a motion to
take money out of. This is a motion to deny the increase. Why
should we deny the increase? Why should the increase be forgone?
The issue of the scandal is not the programs. The issue of the
scandal is the management of the programs or indeed the lack of
management of the programs by the Liberal government. The
Liberal members keep on saying that the Conservatives made them
do it or whatever the case maybe. They seem to conveniently
forget that the boondoggle in HRDC actually occurred under their
watch.
I also draw to the member's attention, indeed to the attention
of all the Liberals, the fact that it is the Liberals who are not
honouring the Canada Health Act. The Reform party supports the
Canada Health Act. The Liberals do not honour the Canada Health
Act.
Because the federal government has cut back on the resources to
health care, the provinces are forced to deliver health care
however they can. For example, what province in Canada is not
currently having its Workers' Compensation Board, a provincial
creation and provincial agency, queue jump? That is two tier
health care. When an MRI is needed by somebody who is off work,
is that person put in the same long lineup that is being created
by the Liberal government? No. The WCB recognizes that there is
a requirement for these MRIs. It wants to diagnose the problem
created in the workforce. Those provinces and their Workers'
Compensation Boards are queue jumping because of this Liberal
government.
Furthermore those members, particularly the member from Ontario,
love to dump however they can on Premier Harris. The health
situation in Ontario has been caused directly by the Liberal
federal government. People are being forced to go Rochester. It
was a laugh when the Prime Minister said that he did not want to
get into the Americanization of Canada. It is the Liberal
government that has created the situation that the Ontario
government is in. The only way it can deliver services to cancer
patients is to send them to the United States.
I do not understand how those people can talk out of both sides
of their mouths. It is amazing. There is a major difference
between those people and the people on this side of the House,
particularly the Reform Party.
The member from Mississauga said that the purpose of the
government was to collect taxes to redistribute wealth.
Excuse me, I believe it is the purpose of the Government of
Canada to collect taxes to deliver services and to collect no
more money than it needs to collect in order to deliver those
services. It has nothing to do with redistributing wealth unless
one happens to be of that particular party. Whose money is it? It
is the taxpayers' money and the government is in the process
right at this moment of collecting far more money than it needs
to collect in the area of taxation.
1805
Finally, in rebuttal to what that member had to say, what a
patronizing elitist attitude it is that only the federal
government can serve the people of Canada. Come on, let us get
real.
The people of Canada elect the provincial legislatures in the
same way that they elect the federal government. The Liberal
federal government talks about the fact that it will make sure
that the provinces will spend their money correctly. It will not
let any of that money out that it extracted from the taxpayer. It
will not let the provinces get away with actually managing their
own money. I have heard it all day. Virtually every Liberal
member who has stood up in this House of parliament today has
said that only the federal government knows how to manage
Canadians' money. Give it up. Give me a break.
What we are talking about here is not giving $1.5 billion to a
federal government that has shown that it is incapable of
properly managing the finances of the people of Canada. If the
HRDC scandal were anything other than what it is, it would be
seen as an absolute picture of the fact that the Liberals do not
know how to manage money.
Does the government not have a place in helping Canadians and
companies create jobs? The answer is yes. The problem is the
seriously flawed method the Liberals use because it is so wide
open to abuse. Consider the facts.
Quebec received $139 million while Ontario got $38 million. The
Prime Minister's constituency alone took in more than Alberta,
Saskatchewan or Manitoba. In 1997 HRDC spent $529 million in
Quebec but only $218 million this year. This of course leads to
the suspicion that the funds were used to try to influence voting
patterns in Quebec, in other words chequebook federalism.
There are three perhaps four probes into job creation grant
irregularities in the Prime Minister's riding alone. There are
seven more police investigations which are known to be going on
elsewhere. I wonder why we should not trust the Liberals to be
able to manage these funds. I just gave a perfectly good detail,
and it is not just Ontario and Quebec.
Let us look at the justice minister's riding. The province of
Alberta received $3.8 million allocated under the TJF and CJF
programs. Where did the vast majority, two-thirds of the money
go in Alberta? It just happened to go to the justice minister's
riding. She got $2.6 million of the $3.8 million. This is
absolute political slush. It is exactly why we are saying do not
transfer the $1.5 billion over to the HRDC but use the funds
where they should be used.
I agree that the answer to the problems with medicare are not
necessarily chequebook related. It may be hard for the member
for Mississauga West to accept but I do agree with his proposal
that there has to be an open and balanced discussion about the
act proposed by Alberta and an unveiling of what the facts are in
a non-politically charged environment, as long as there is not
the kind of rhetoric we had from the member for
Waterloo—Wellington. It was a piece of work. The implication
was that we are bad and they are good. Come on. That is not the
way to conduct any kind of discussion on this issue.
1810
In conclusion, the motion that the House call on the Minister of
Finance to increase the Canada health and social transfer by $1.5
billion and forgo the $1.5 billion increase to federal grants and
contributions is a very sound one. The people of Canada will at
least know that the resources the government has decided to spend
will go into an area that will have the oversight and the
intelligence of the provincial health ministers and the
provincial governments who also represent the people of Canada.
It has been a privilege and a pleasure to address the House but
I have to say in all candour that it was an exceptionally
exasperating day, as the members on the Liberal side of the House
have continued to state what they consider to be facts and, quite
frankly, distort things so that they appear to be the way they
want them to appear other than the way that they actually are.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member opposite covered a
lot of territory, but I take exception when he tries to
characterize the government as being bad fiscal managers.
The Minister for HRDC has clearly acknowledged that there are
administrative problems that have to be cleared up, and she is
doing that. This government and the fiscal measures of the
Minister of Finance, working with all his colleagues in this
caucus, have eliminated a $42 billion deficit. How is that for
starters?
We have interest rates that are at their lowest in 16 or 17
years. We have a rate of inflation that has consistently stayed
within the range of 1% to 3% over the last many, many years. How
about the level of employment or the reduction in the rate of
unemployment to the lowest level in a generation?
When the member talks about a scandal, I do not know how he puts
things into perspective. Of course he would love to have
Canadians believe that there is a fiscal management problem in
the Government of Canada, which he knows is patently not the
case.
I wonder if he could put those into perspective when he
responds.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Madam Speaker, I certainly can. As we
heard in question period today, this kind of gross financial
mismanagement is not confined to just this one part of HRDC. We
have now discovered that there has been gross mismanagement in
the area of TAGS.
I also point out to the member that the reason there is a
balance is because of the long suffering taxpayer. The average
family of four, since this government took over, has had an
increase of $4,000 a year in taxes.
Furthermore, the U.S. interest rates, which are reflected in
Canada, are unfortunately not also reflected in the unemployment
figures. Take a look at the difference between the unemployment
rate in Canada versus the unemployment rate in the United States.
This member does not make a case for proper management by the
Liberal government.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the motion by the Reform Party is about the government
putting hard earned taxpayer dollars where its mouth is, not
where its back pocket is. As a result of the Liberal policy, the
health care system has been deteriorating steadily.
Does the hon. member agree that the Liberal government should
not only restore the funding to health care but also owes
Canadians an apology?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I could agree to that. I point
out that health care costs have risen by 19% since the Liberals
came to power while, at the same time, contrary to the assertions
of the other side, the contributions by the federal government to
the provincial governments have gone down drastically, down by
about 40%.
1815
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.15 p.m. it
is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The division on the
amendment stands deferred until Tuesday, March 21, at the end of
the period provided for Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I asked the
following question in the House:
Mr. Speaker, because of the EI reforms brought in by this
Liberal government and the Progressive Conservative government
before it, only 30% of unemployed women are receiving EI
benefits, compared to 70% in 1989.
A Statistics Canada study shows that EI cuts are the leading
reason for the increase in poverty among families with children.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development prepared to admit
that, by reducing the eligibility of unemployed parents for EI
benefits, she is increasing child poverty?
At the time, the minister answered:
The hon. member opposite would have us believe that women are
not making gains in the labour force, in fact, the opposite is
true. The unemployment rate of 5.8% for adult women is the
lowest in almost 25 years.
This might well be the lowest, but the fact is that women no
longer qualify for employment insurance; they now are on social
assistance.
If they are on social assistance, they do not qualify for
employment insurance and therefore they do not show up in the
statistics, in the numbers quoted by the minister. This is one
of the problems we are experiencing these days.
I rose countless times in the House and put questions to the
minister on employment insurance only to have her answer: “Well,
people used to abuse the system, to do this or that”. At long
last, the Prime Minister of Canada admitted on Saturday night
during his party's convention in Ottawa that they lost in the
Atlantic provinces because of the cuts they made to employment
insurance and because they hurt people in the region. The Prime
Minister finally realized it.
Today, the Globe and Mail reported that they want to make two
changes to the employment insurance. They mentioned the clawback
provisions and the intensity rule. If the government and the
Liberals think they will buy votes in Atlantic Canada by raising
the intensity rule to 55%, I can tell them that 55% of $6 is not
much. People will get about $3.50.
People will continue to live in poverty. The Liberals have yet
to understand the problem in Atlantic Canada. The problem there
is that people do not qualify, they do not work the 910 hours
required. Young people do not qualify. Will the Liberals finally
realize the harm they have caused to families, to parents, to
single mothers?
1820
Will this government understand once and for all? Will the Prime
Minister of Canada understand, or will he only listen to the
Ontario Liberal caucus which is coming up with the clawback
provision and the intensity rule, because they cannot live with
these problems in southern Ontario?
The real problems of Atlantic Canada is that people do not
qualify. Women do not qualify. Fish plant workers do not
qualify. Construction workers do not qualify and the amounts
they receive are inadequate.
I hope the government will make the real changes that I have
been asking for in this House since June 7, 1997 when I was
elected here.
I won over my predecessor, Doug Young, who made cuts in the
Atlantic provinces.
I hope the Liberals will look into their souls and make real
changes.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Statistics
Canada has released two reports which conclude that Mr. Godin's
statistics are not a good measure of the adequacy of the EI
program.
These statistics exclude people on sickness benefits, maternity
benefits, parental adoption benefits, fishing benefits and part
II EI benefits. The statistics include many people who have
never contributed to the program, such as people who never
worked, the self-employed, people who have no recent work
attachment and those who voluntarily left their jobs.
A more adequate set of measurements is found in the employment
coverage survey published by Statistics Canada in 1999. This
survey suggests that employment insurance covers 79% of the
people who are eligible, not 30% as described by the hon. member.
Presently there are several features of the EI program that are
of importance to women. One is that every hour of work is
covered. Women working part time or holding multiple jobs can
now be eligible for both EI regular and EI special benefits.
We also know that two-thirds of those who receive the more
generous family supplement are women. Fifty-eight per cent of
those participating in the small weeks adjustment project which
provides workers in high unemployment regions with higher
benefits are women. As well, the reach back provision for the
active employment measures expands eligibility for women,
providing increased help for stay at home mothers to get back
into the workforce.
Canadian women have made significant gains in the labour market.
Women represent nearly half the labour force compared to 30% in
1966. Their employment grew faster than men's in each of the
last four decades. Their rate of employment is the highest in
the G-7 countries over the last 20 years.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I remind the hon.
parliamentary secretary to use the names of ridings of members in
the House and not to call them by their names.
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
since the opening of the session, after the Christmas break, on
February 6, we have seen in this House that a huge scandal is
going on at HRDC.
The scandal could involve between $1 billion and $3 billion. It
is unprecedented. Even under the ten years of Conservative
government, never did we see a scandal of this scope.
In an effort to cover it up, the minister has set up two toll
free telephone lines, one for MPs and one for the public. Here
is the number for the public. It is 1-888-567-5844.
There is another toll free number for members.
I used this line to inquire about HRDC grants in my riding of
Frontenac—Mégantic, in Thetford and in the Lac-Mégantic region.
1825
I was told to go through HRDC's access to information office,
and each request would cost me $5. Having wasted four days, I
quickly filled out the required forms and paid $40 for my eight
requests. I must wait 30 days before I get any answers. I
suspect these answers will bring out two particular cases in the
riding of Frontenac—Mégantic.
The parliamentary secretary is in the House to respond. I fully
expect that she will read me an answer prepared by her
officials.
I am wondering if the minister is not trying to delay the
provision of answers to our questions, which could lead us to
uncover yet more instances of mishandling that would raise the
total amount involved at HRDC well above $3 billion.
Tonight, I am accusing the Liberal government of trying to
conceal the truth. I am also accusing the government of
squandering taxpayers' money. I am accusing the Minister of
Human Resources Development of interfering with the transparency
of her department. Finally, I am accusing the government of
patronage.
In the Thetford region, the granite region, HRDC funds were used
for patronage. Only 42% of workers who pay EI contributions
qualify for benefits if they lose their jobs or if they are
seasonal workers. That money is used for patronage.
That is what happened in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime
Minister's riding. The government had promised to give $165,000
to create 45 jobs in the riding of Rosemont, a disadvantaged
riding in Montreal's east end. What did the government do? It
took this money that was supposed to go to Rosemont under the
agreement the member for that riding had signed with HRDC and,
without him knowing anything about it, transferred that money to
the Prime Minister's riding. Is that not patronage?
What happened then? Pierre Corbeil toured plants to meet general
managers and ask them for cash contributions of $10,000,
$15,000, $20,000 or $25,000. No wonder beer was flowing at the
convention over the week-end—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
member, but his time has expired.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this gives
me a chance to reiterate the idea that the 30% coverage for EI
which was stated both by this colleague and the previous speaker
is incorrect.
The employment coverage survey published by Statistics Canada
says that EI covers 79% of people who are eligible. That is the
correct number. Thirty per cent is incorrect. We cannot pay
employment insurance benefits to people who have not contributed,
to people who have no recent attachment to the workforce and
therefore have not paid premiums. It is impossible for an
insurance program to pay benefits to people who have not paid
premiums. Of the people who have paid premiums, 79% received
benefits.
The second point I would like to refute in the member's speech
is the fact that he is suggesting the delivery of grants and
contributions is tied to partisan political patronage. I would
suggest to him that if he has any evidence of that he bring it
forward to us. If he does not have evidence I would challenge
him to make those statements outside the House.
The member talked about the transfer of some economic activity
funded by HRDC to the Prime Minister's riding.
The grant was made for activity in the city of Montreal. The
business owner, who was responsible for 75% of the investment,
made a business decision to move that activity from the original
location. That has nothing to do with patronage. It has to do
with a business decision of somebody who has three-quarters of
the investment in when we had one-quarter.
On the issue of his access to information request, I have spoken
to the member in the House. I have answered his questions and
have suggested that he come to see me personally and I would be
willing to—
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is deemed to have been adopted. Pursuant to Standing Order
24(1), the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)