Antoine Dubé

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

He can say what he likes, because he will have the floor after me. In the spirit of the holidays, I would like to use less aggressive, more parliamentary language.

So, these were errors, but there have been surpluses. These surpluses, year in, year out, have always been greater than $10 billion recently. Ten billion dollars is quite something.

We could talk about the issue of surpluses for a long time. However, I would like to add another dimension to the debate. For years, for a very long time now, the federal government has enjoyed interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Our hon. colleague and new finance critic, the member for Joliette, told us that there was intrusion in provincial jurisdictions to the tune of $15 billion each year.

I remember reading in a report by the Bélanger-Campeau commission that the cost of administering the federal government's intrusions in provincial jurisdictions from year to year, the cost of administrative overlap, was estimated at the time at $2 billion. That was in the early 1990s. We can assume that this amount has increased since then. It is quite incredible.

Nonetheless, there is a positive note in the Romanow report. He admits that there is fiscal imbalance. A commission in Quebec, headed by Mr. Séguin, had determined that there was fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government, and that the health needs were obviously in Quebec and in the provinces, but the money was in Ottawa.

Here is what is happening. Everyone knows that the population is aging. Health, in terms of technologies, increased cost of medication, equipment and capital investment has become more expensive. Starting with 23% in 1995, the Liberals in power decreased transfer payments to 14%.

We can talk about fiscal imbalance, but it could be argued that with the increase in costs, there are two dimensions that come into play at the same time in provincial budgets. We can talk about fiscal strangulation. By 2010, the portion of the budget allocated to health and education in Quebec will represent 85% of the costs.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

As the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable said, he is fiddling with the figures.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable.

Prebudget consultations are held every year. However, they are even more important this year. In fact, there is a very important issue at stake in health care between the federal government and the provinces. There will be a first ministers' meeting about the issue at the beginning of January.

During this meeting, the provinces will attempt to convince the federal government to reinvest in health, perhaps not as much as it did when the Canada Health Act was passed in the late 1970s, but at least as much as Mr. Romanow suggested, which is 25%. Right now the government is only investing 14%. This is the context in which this meeting will take place.

Before beginning my comments, since these are prebudget consultations, I would like to highlight the remarkable effort and talent of our finance critic in recent years. His forecasts have consistently been better than those of the former Minister of Finance, who aspires to be the next Prime Minister. In the last three years alone, the latter has been off in his budget forecasts by 300%.

We were hoping that the current Minister of Finance would be better. Obviously, this will be his first official budget, likely in February. We will see at that time. However, already in his prebudget forecasts, we can see that he suffers from the same propensity—I dare not use a stronger word—as the former Minister of Finance, which is the propensity to hide the surplus somewhat.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member, who has just addressed urban issues at the request of the NDP member. I would just like to point out that the municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction.

I would, however, take advantage of this opportunity to ask her whether she agrees with the federal government's reinvesting in health at the level recommended by Mr. Romanow, that is a minimum of 25%, or some $6 billion.

Does she agree with this?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in this very important debate on the motion to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

When debating this issue, we must think about those who will come after us, that is, young people. We must think about the distant future. That is why in Quebec, few people have criticized the fact that Canada has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels, by 2008 or 2010.

We are talking about the future. In Quebec, there is another reason. The Government of Quebec and all Quebeckers have already made an effort to use hydroelectricity, which has less of an impact on greenhouse gas emissions of course. Many things have been done in this respect.

Nonetheless, there is still a lot to do. We must think about developing new energies such as wind energy. Canada does not have a very good track record in this respect, compared to other countries.

In Germany, 35.8% of energy used, or 8,753 megawatts, comes from wind power. Germany is a world leader in this form of energy. In the United States, 4,245 megawatts, 17.3% of their energy, were wind-generated. In Spain, the figure is 13.6%; in Denmark, it is 9.9%; in India, which is not a rich country, it is 6.2%; in China, it is 1.6%; and in Canada, it is 0.8%. Half of Canada's wind energy is produced in Quebec.

In Quebec, regions such as Cap-Chat and Matane have already developed wind energy. Nonetheless, there is extraordinary potential in eastern Quebec, the North Shore and Îles-de-la-Madeleine. There are people, researchers who think and seriously consider that this could be installed on off-shore platforms.

I listened to researchers speak of how blowy these regions are—and they might well blow their own horns as far as tourist attraction is concerned as well—how exposed to the wind they are.

The wind does not blow equally everywhere, on all shores and all hills. Where there are hills, mountains or other elevations, this affects wind direction, as well as strength. According to the researchers, there is room for improvement, although it is very good at present. For instance, in areas where the river is shallow, platforms and pillars could be constructed. There are major possibilities.

The whole goal of this is to emphasize a certain aspect. I may be faulted for looking out for my riding, but that is precisely what I was elected for. The platforms I am referring to are very much like the oil drilling platforms required to exploit offshore oil.

Now, as for the type of construction required for such platforms, the Lévis shipyards are one of the main companies that have developed expertise in this area in Canada. Obviously, then, there are many possibilities as far as platforms and turbines are concerned.

I raise this point because I believe it is in keeping with research and experimental trends for further development of this technology. It already is quite efficient, as can be seen from the list of countries I have given. More use could be made of it in Canada. I see that the Minister of Natural Resources is listening carefully and I appreciate that. He has already indicated that he too has an interest in this matter, as does his department. It is not something far-fetched, when such countries as Germany, the U.S., Spain, Denmark, India and China are involved. They are leaders as far as this type of energy is concerned. I think it is worthwhile taking it further.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, wind power creates more jobs per dollar invested than any other technology, more than five times the figure for thermal or nuclear energy.

The European Wind Energy Association has calculated that for each megawatt of wind energy that is installed, some 60 jobs are created per year, and another 15 to 19 direct and indirect jobs. Therefore, in 1996, the 3,500 newly installed megawatts in Europe would have created 72,000 jobs. Obviously 72,000 jobs would be welcome anywhere. Some regions are better suited to it than others. The creation of jobs in resource-based regions such as the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé Peninsula and the North Shore would be one solution. We must think about development in the regions and about young people leaving. We know that every province in Canada is experiencing this problem; we must think about it.

Many people are critical of certain interventions. For example, Davie. This fall, there was a great media flurry criticizing the fact the Government of Quebec and the federal government for intervening in the case of Davie, by awarding it a contract. People said that the decision was a bad one and that we had to let free markets decide. However, everyone agrees that there is a role for the government to play in job creation in big businesses in certain sectors, including wind energy. Not only does it create jobs, but it also has an impact on our desire to leave a better environment for those who will come after us.

There was a time when industrialization created a great many jobs. Unfortunately, it also affected the environment. It affected the climate. In Quebec alone, for example, the levels of the St. Lawrence have changed more quickly in recent years than in any other period. We are not talking about returning to the ice age, but there has been more change than at any other period. Global warming is causing glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctic to melt. All of this is causing an upheaval that is producing more severe and more frequent natural disasters.

All we have to do is look at what happened in the Saguenay, what was called the Saguenay flood. It caused dams to collapse and there was damage caused by the flood. There was also the ice storm in Quebec.

In the United States, some regions are more susceptible to tornadoes and hurricanes. Observers around the world have noticed that there have been an increasing number of strange meteorological phenomena and that some regions are getting warmer, while others are getting colder. Nothing is black and white, but there are sufficient observations that people are increasingly surprised and worried about the issue.

Everybody recognizes that there is a reason the Kyoto summit led to a protocol to control greenhouse gas emissions.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I reaffirm our support to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Tomorrow evening, we will not be voting on the implementation of the Kyoto protocol, but on its ratification. We support ratification of this protocol.

Of course, when the time comes to implement it—negotiations between the federal and provincial governments have already begun; some rather interesting discussions are taking place and concerns are being voiced—some conditions will have to be complied with.

Again, we agree with ratification of the Kyoto protocol. However, as regards its implementation, the Ottawa plan uses 2010 as the reference year, that is the year when each province or sector of the economy will have to begin to make specific reduction efforts. We feel that this approach is unfair, because it does not take into account past and current efforts, and because it encourages polluters to pollute even more between now and the year 2010.

Polluters should not be rewarded, nor those who are already making efforts penalized. Ottawa—that is, of course, the federal government—says that it is prepared to fund projects in the hydrocarbon industry. In the past, the federal government gave 20 times more money in direct subsidies to the hydrocarbon industry than to renewable energies.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government to pledge to give one dollar to renewable energies for each dollar invested in the hydrocarbon industry.

The federal government has developed an unfair plan that benefits the industries that pollute the most. The principles that make it worthwhile to ratify the Kyoto protocol call for another way of doing things.

Again, the polluter pay principle, whereby those who pollute the most are the ones who must reduce their emissions the most, is not being applied adequately. This is a matter of fairness. The Bloc Quebecois has made proposals that are, in our opinion, the most equitable and beneficial.

As far as respect of provincial jurisdiction over the environment is concerned, there must be an acknowledgment that the federal government has jurisdiction over the environment, if only for certain phenomena such as the air and water that move from one province to another. There we have to recognize federal jurisdiction. But there are also provincial jurisdictions over the environment, natural resources and manufacturing, and these must be taken into consideration.

In short, we make a clear distinction between ratification of the Kyoto protocol and its implementation. We are convinced that it needs to be ratified, based on a number of principles to which we are deeply attached and which need to be reflected in implementation.

I would like to remind hon. members that all parties in the Quebec National Assembly also agree on ratification of Kyoto. There is a consensus on this in place in Quebec.

I personally agree with the approach of the Quebec minister of the environment, Mr. Boisclair, who wishes to see a bilateral agreement between the federal government and Quebec. Obviously, we have no objection to the same thing being done between the federal government and the other provinces.

This would be desirable, because as we watch this debate evolve in the House, we can see the regional differences that exist as far as interests, and potential problems, difficulties and constraints relating to application of the Kyoto protocol are concerned.

But for Quebec, when we refer to taking past efforts into consideration, we are thinking of the entire matter of credit allocation for past efforts, for which there ought to be recognition.

At the same time, this is a debate in which it might be hard to avoid partisan politics.

Personally, I think that ratification of the Kyoto protocol will require efforts from everyone, particularly when it comes to consumption. Without meaning to judge or criticize those who drive SUVs too harshly, when I see big vehicles in downtown Quebec City or Montreal, I have to wonder what the use is of having such a big, gas-guzzling engine to drive on city streets, at reduced speeds. The roads are smooth and even. It is not as if they were driving in the forest.

I represent Lévis, but I come from the Lower St. Lawrence, where there are a lot of forests. I can understand that this type of vehicle is useful for forestry workers, but in the city, one has to wonder.

In order to reduce traffic problems in the downtowns of cities, whether it be Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto or Vancouver, I think we need to take this opportunity to think more about public transit. The ideal would be to have high speed trains for longer distances, but I am also talking about commuter trains. I know some people from Mont-Saint-Hilaire, in Quebec. A commuter train was added there to allow them to get out of the downtown area. There are a number of commuter lines on the North Shore, near Montreal. It is an idea that works and that contributes a great deal to easing traffic congestion downtown.

People in Quebec City are starting to talk about the idea. I am from the South Shore, but there could be public transportation to connect the South Shore, which would reduce the number of cars on both bridges and on the ferry. I mentioned these two cities because that is where there is the most urban transit and traffic jams.

During the week, I live in the Outaouais, in the riding of Hull—Aylmer. There is a great deal of traffic there. Why is there no commuter train between the Outaouais and downtown Ottawa?

I know that all the members from the Toronto area could talk about rush-hour congestion. This is a major problem. It is also a problem in Vancouver. I imagine it is the same in Calgary or Edmonton. This is a common problem, and we should all give it some thought.

Hydro-Québec did a lot of research into electric motors for vehicles. Research is advancing rapidly, but it will not be applied for a long time. In the meantime, I think it is important to have a debate like the one we are having tonight.

I know that not everyone agrees. In a democracy, however, diverging opinions need to be respected. I realize that Alliance members have expressed concerns. They are looking after the interests of their constituents, and I think we must respect that. At the same time, the debate allows us to disagree, but also to move in our thinking towards consensus.

We will never exhaust the subject, but I want to draw a comparison with firearms. Yes, it is one thing to control guns, but the Firearms Act led to a debate. This debate increased awareness. People thought that money needed to be spent to change the attitudes to violence.

The same is true for the environment. I am pleased to have been able to speak on this issue. I hope that my non-partisan suggestions will be heard. The Minister of Natural Resources is nodding a yes, which I appreciate.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer is distracting me. Given that I live in his city during the week, and that we contribute to the economy of his riding, he should have the decency to listen to us. I live there during the week.

I will give the Romanow report one thing. He recognized that there is a shortfall, that health is underfunded and that there is a lack of transfers. He proposes at the very least returning to funding 25% of health care costs. He proposes that the federal government's contribution be set at least five years in advance.

Personally, I hope that the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Health will recognize that fact and follow up on the recommendation about reinvesting in health care. As long as we stay in this system, where taxes are collected and where the federal government, using its spending power, invests in areas under provincial jurisdiction, we will have to keep this in mind.

In closing, I read the article by Paule Des Rivières, editorial writer for Le Devoir . I will read only one paragraph. While the government wants to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, she writes, and I quote:

In 1994, the Auditor General found a huge amount, $8 billion, in unrecovered taxes at Revenue Canada; in 1995, he revealed that $720 million had been wasted on the construction of the bridge to Prince Edward Island; in 1996, he reported that harmonization of the GST in the Atlantic provinces had cost $1 billion; in 1997, he demonstrated that Ottawa could have obtained $1 billion more for the sale of its air navigation system; in 1998, he exposed negligence in the management of social insurance numbers; in 1999, he denounced the ridiculously high surplus in the employment insurance fund; in 2000, he confirmed that hundreds of millions of dollars had disappeared in uncontrolled grants at HRDC; in 2001, we learned that Ottawa had saved $400 million at the expense of senior citizens.

And now we are told that $1 billion will be spent for gun control, which is a lot more than expected. With these kinds of administrative blunders, it is unacceptable for the government to want to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to inform the Chair that I will split my time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I think it is appropriate to read the motion before us today. This motion has been put forward by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who is our critic on health issues. Incidentally, he is doing an excellent job and I am taking this opportunity to congratulate him. The motion reads as follows:

That the federal government give the provinces the additional money for health unconditionally, with the promise of the provinces to use all of it for health care.

The hon. member for Drummond, who sits on the Standing Committee on Finance, proposed an amendment which reads as follows:

according to the priorities they have established and to provide an accounting to their residents.

This goes without saying. The main argument is included in the amendment. There is no question that Quebec agrees with the principle of being accountable to its own citizens. Quebec has an auditor general too.

I want to say a few words on the Romanow report. The recommendations included in this report call for a standardization of health care in Canada, and they deal with issues that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

The Romanow report proposes structures, standards and more bureaucrats in Ottawa, which goes against the very spirit of the Constitution. Federal officials would start meddling in provincial matters.

The Romanow report proposes a single Canada-wide health system, which of course is unacceptable to Quebec. As the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve pointed out, it is unacceptable not only to the Premier of Quebec, but also to the leaders of the other two parties in the National Assembly, and to all the members of that assembly, which passed a resolution to this effect.

I want to take a few moments to mention the comments made by Jean Charest, who said “Health is a jurisdiction of the Quebec National Assembly. It is not up to the federal government to set priorities, or to impose conditions on the transfer of funds”. He added that “Federal funding for health must be unconditional”. Mr. Charest emphasized that point.

With respect to the Romanow report, the leader of Action démocratique du Québec, Mario Dumont, said that “It essentially means more centralization, more bureaucracy, more exclusions regarding the diversification of services. In that sense, it goes against the ADQ's platform. It is contrary to the experiences of all the provinces that have tried to improve the operation of the health system”.

I think it is useful to mention these comments.

In short, the Romanow report would turn the current system upside down and lead to squabbling and endless discussions. In the meantime, patients are suffering and health care providers are exhausted.

I was listening when the health minister stated that the Romanow report would put an end to all the squabbling. On the contrary. Without going over all the recommendations in the Romanow report, we can see that it proposes a new structure, a Canada-wide council. That means more public servants. It would add a new principle to the Canada Health Act, the so-called accountability principle. It would extend the legislation to include diagnostic and home-care services. It wants to go further.

Since health care is an area of provincial jurisdiction, would it not be appropriate for the federal government to transfer money to Quebec?

Every since the Canada Health Act was passed and the system was established, the federal government has been collecting taxes in Quebec and, pursuant to its spending power, funding health care.

The Government of Quebec has the option of not agreeing to the conditions attached to the additional health funding. Maybe the Prime Minister will agree to hand over the money after meeting with the premiers, but we do not know the amount involved. What we know is that Quebec needs at least $50 million more a week.

If everyone were minding their own business in Canada, provinces would collect the taxes they needed to deliver health care.

Right now, the federal government is providing funding anyway; it wants to provide funding and many provinces, in fact all of them except Quebec, want to keep receiving funding from Ottawa.

This is what Mr. Bouchard did in 2000, when he was forced to accept the offer made at the time to increase funding for health care, but with a knife to his throat. Not accepting it would have meant refusing a considerable amount of money and being forced to tax Quebeckers more, which put us in a completely untenable situation. This is called fiscal strangulation; there is no other word for it. This is a very sensitive area; very important, given that it is health.

The Minister of Health is saying to us, “Do not squabble over this. Do not squabble over the Romanow report. Do not squabble over the possibility of the federal government going back to the funding levels that existed before this party took office”. That is what is being called for, returning to the funding levels that existed in 1993. The cuts were made unilaterally, need I add?

Mr. Romanow's study lasted 18 months and cost $15 million, if we are to believe the figures. Currently, there is a $50 million shortfall in health care funding per week. Imagine all of the things that could not be done. If we had received this money, there might be more doctors, more nurses, more equipment, more could have been done to help the health care system.

The Liberal Party is not able to be consistent on a motion moved in the House on distinct society; it cannot recognize that Quebec does things differently. We have the best health care system in Canada because, for example, when it comes to home care, we have the CLSCs. No other province has done as much as Quebec in terms of prevention and home care.

Incidentally, Mr. Romanow commented on this; his recommendations reflected these accomplishments. No other province, as far as I know—

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of management by the federal government, I would ask my colleague for his opinion.

I mentioned that, in 1994, there was $8 billion in unpaid taxes; in 2000, $1 billion was lost in human resources; in 2001, $400 million in income supplements were not paid to seniors; in May 2002, there was the sponsorship scandal, and now it seems that the cost of the firearms registry is almost up to $1 billion.

Does he think that the government deserves the criticism that he just expressed?

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech. We see in the Romanow report an attempt to extend the scope of the Canadian legislation, particularly concerning diagnostic services and home care. It seeks to add the principle of accountability .

Every year, the Auditor General finds shortcomings, such as the $1 billion missing in the budget of the Department of Human Resources Development and the cost of gun control, which is now $1 billion. How can such an ineffective government still want to intrude into areas that are outside its jurisdiction?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, you invited us to make a few comments. I will make only one.

As members know, the Government of Quebec agrees with ratifying Kyoto. Nonetheless, the National Assembly of Quebec asked for four things: that the allocation formula take into account the reductions achieved since 1990 and those that will be achieved by 2008; that the manufacturing industry be treated equitably and not be assimilated to the energy sector in the allocation of emissions rights, in order to balance the efforts required of all the major economic sectors; that the allocation formula for the energy sector favour sources of energy that emit less carbon; and that a bilateral agreement be signed with the Government of Quebec.

I would like to have the minister's reactions to these four points.