House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was health.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Pierrefonds—Dollard (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 31% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply April 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, in 1984 the members of this House unanimously adopted the Canada Health Act. It was a particularly noteworthy event for two specific reasons. This legislation guaranteed quality health services to all Canadians, regardless of their income or their place of residence.

Furthermore, this piece of legislation was adopted unanimously by the members of all the parties. Everyone felt a national health insurance scheme was invaluable.

This government's commitment to universal health care remains unshaken. The Canada Health Act and the system we have built under its framework is a defining feature for our society. The essence of medicare is not to be found in the mysteries of a funding formula. It is certainly not to be found simply in the amount of money we spend. Rather, it is to be found in providing quality health care equally to all Canadians.

The five main principles underlying the Canada Health Act are: universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration. They are rooted in values of fairness, social justice, compassion and respect for human dignity. These values are shared by all Canadians. They are part of our social fabric.

Some claim that our health insurance system is too costly and that we can no longer afford the luxury of a government funded system. On the contrary, I believe that our health insurance system is no luxury but a necessity and that public financing of this system helps keep health care costs under control.

In investing in health in general and in health care services, our government is helping to keep Canadians healthy and fit. They will be able to meet the economic challenges of the 21st century. Studies indicate that many days of work are lost to illness or accident. They all reach the same conclusion: these days lost have a negative effect on workers, society and the economy.

A health care system that Canadians can access without fear of financial hardship encourages people to seek medically necessary treatment before an illness or injury becomes life threatening or debilitating. Early diagnosis and treatment are far less expensive than chronic care, both to the individual and to the system. Such a system does not encourage patients to seek inappropriate care.

For those who think in terms of the bottom line, the principles of the Canada Health Act support an economically efficient health care system. These are economies of scale obtained from governments being the only buyers of medically necessary hospital and physician health care services and of the entire population being the customer base. A system that is publicly administered saves this country billions of dollars annually in administrative overhead. In hospitals and in clinics this frees up the resources in time to practise medicine, not administration.

Finally, medicare produces a healthy population, which in turn means a healthy and productive labour force. This is a reciprocal relationship between business and the health sector. A healthy business sector means economic growth. Economic growth means jobs. Jobs reduce unemployment, and less unemployment means a healthier population and reduced health costs. In other words, a healthy Canada is a wealthy Canada.

The fact that the Canada Health Act is both to flexible and too rigid was also deplored. Yet, according to the Canadian constitution, it is up to the provinces and territories to provide and administer health care services. Consequently, the provinces and territories must identify their own priorities and manage their resources.

Under the act, the provinces and territories must provide the required medical and hospital services. However, nothing prevents them from providing other types of services. This means that a province may pay for the costs of prescription drugs or dental care for children, while another may finance air ambulance services.

As long as it abides by the five basic principles underlying the Canada Health Act, each provincial or territorial government is free to provide additional services at its own cost, or experiment with different structures. The basic criteria governing federal financing under the Canada Health Act are the five principles previously mentioned. The government is not prepared to compromise on these principles.

The basic criteria for federal funding under the Canada Health Act are the five principles mentioned earlier. It is these that the government is not willing to negotiate.

The first principle is universality, meaning that all residents of a province must be insured under the provincial health plan if it is to receive federal support. We as Canadians believe we must all have access to medically necessary services. People cannot be deinsured because they might be costly for the system to cover. They cannot be turned away at the hospital door because, for example, they have not paid their quarterly tax bill or even their provincial premium. Any one of us needing health care will be treated the same as everyone else. This is what is meant by equity.

Accessibility on uniform terms and conditions is the second principle. We should not face any financial barriers in receiving health care, no extra billing, no user charges, no facility fees, no upfront cash payments. If the service is medically necessary, we

will get it at the time defined by medical consideration and not by money.

The principle of comprehensiveness is a recognition that Canadians have a number of needs which must be met. It would be unfair to insure only certain medical services. We will continue to contend that the provinces and territories must insure all medically necessary services.

However, comprehensiveness does not mean uniformity. It does not mean that the provinces and territories must all meet health care needs in exactly the same fashion. These needs must be met, but there is some flexibility as to how this can be achieved.

Portability means that Canadians are always covered by medicare when they travel or move within Canada. This is what gives our health care system its national dimension.

Canadians enjoy the freedom to work and travel anywhere in the country, without fear of losing their health insurance coverage. Each separate health insurance plan may be provincial in origin but is recognized nationally in every province across the country.

The fifth and final principle is public administration. Our health insurance plans must be operated by provincial governments on a non-profit basis. It is at the core of our ability to contain costs in a system and thus to deliver quality care at an affordable price.

Public administration is the key to ensuring all the other principles. When health insurance is operated and funded by the government, we can guarantee that health care is universal, accessible, comprehensive and portable because we have direct control over it. Public administration not only ensures that more of our health care dollars go toward patient care but it also makes governments more successful than the private sector in keeping health care costs under control.

In 1993 we spent about $72 billion on health care. This represents 10 per cent of our gross domestic product. The public component of that 10 per cent has been growing at less than 2 per cent. Compare that to private health spending which has been growing at 6.4 per cent.

However, complying with the provisions of the Canada Health Act does not prevent the provinces and territories from adopting innovative strategies to meet the challenges in providing health care services.

For example, British Columbia has set up emergency response teams, New Brunswick has established an extramural hospital and Quebec has achieved excellent results with its local community health centres. All these initiatives have solved different problems and demonstrate how flexible the legislation is.

The Minister of Health even recognized that private clinics offering medically necessary services can be an effective way to give such services, provided that the medically necessary services are fully covered by provincial or territorial health plans. What is totally unacceptable is, first, physicians extra-billing for services already covered by provincial or territorial health plans and, second, charging user fees for medically necessary services covered by provincial or territorial health plans.

In this era of fiscal restraint, Canadians want value for money. We pay for our health system collectively through our taxes. We all pay so that everyone can benefit according to need. There are altruistic human reasons and hard economic arguments for doing so. Whichever we support, the system works to our benefit. This government is committed to preserving the Canada Health Act because in spite of what its critics may say, it works.

For many of us, health care insurance is an essential part of the Canadian identity. We belong to a nation where all citizens are equal. Anyone in Canada can rely on reasonable access to health care services, not on the basis of wealth but according to need. Every Canadian can rest assured, now and in the future, that he or she will not be ruined financially by a serious illness. The Canadian health care system has no equal in the world. Treatment priorities are set in light of medically necessary services and not according to the patient's wealth.

The Canadian government takes very seriously its role as a defender of universal health care. The Minister of Health has expressed her strong opposition to facility fees, extra-billing and any other sign of a two-tier health care system. Canadians have entrusted their government with protecting their health care system. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, this government intends to show that it is worthy of this trust.

Petitions April 26th, 1995

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to submit a petition signed by people on the west island of Montreal, including people from my riding of Pierrefonds-Dollard, with respect to their approval of the proposed amendments to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They ask that Parliament amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the undefined term "sexual orientation" in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The Outaouais March 29th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and concerns both the statements made by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata regarding the City of Hull and her apology in the House. Will the minister confirm in this House that the Outaouais region is not a victim of economic discrimination?

Quebec Referendum March 28th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, following the Parti Quebecois youth forum on Sunday, the Premier of Quebec said that Quebecers were not ready to vote for sovereignty at this time.

On this point, the PQ leader is right. His only problem is that Quebecers will not be ready either in September 1995 or next year. The people do not want Quebec to separate.

This is clearly demonstrated by the results of a poll conducted by the council of Quebec employers, according to which 97 per cent of council members want the referendum to be held in 1995 while 89 per cent of them favour a June plebiscite.

As the leader of the Bloc Quebecois recently said, the referendum must be held as soon as possible.

The Environment March 22nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday at a symposium the Quebec Minister of the Environment stated that Quebec's environment would be better protected if the province withdrew from the absurdity of the federal regime.

In 1990, when he was federal environment minister, the leader of the Bloc said: "A sovereign Quebec will not be able to solve its problems alone, any more than Canada could find a solution to the problem of acid rain on its own, without negotiating with the United States. Nationalism has no place in a global issue-".

How does the Leader of the Official Opposition intend to reconcile his earlier position with the statement of the Quebec environment minister?

Save Your Vision Week March 1st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, March 5 to 11 is "Save your vision week" in Canada. This is an annual event to foster public awareness sponsored by the Canadian Association of Optometrists.

This year's theme is: "Hope is in sight. Good vision and literacy: There is a clear connection".

Many Canadians are unable to read simply because they do not see well. Children do not learn to read if they cannot focus on the blackboard or on the words in a book. One child in six has a vision problem, which makes it hard for him or her to learn and to read. The key is prevention. Early detection of vision problems really helps improve literacy. It has been established that three quarters of adults with literacy problems also have vision problems.

I join, therefore, with the 2,800 optometrists in Canada to remind Canadians that good vision is a must for good reading.

Veterans February 21st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the men and women who served our country in the two world wars have cause for concern today. They have just learned that an independent Quebec would not pay them the veterans' pension.

Jean-Pierre Jolivet, the member for Laviolette and Parti Quebecois whip said, in the context of the proceedings of the Mauricie-Bois-Francs regional commission, that Quebec would not be paying all pensions. Quebec would not be paying the veterans' pension, for example.

In addition to the veterans' pension, the member for Laviolette could perhaps tell people now what other pension plans the government of an independent Quebec would be dropping.

Canada Health Act February 16th, 1995

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-302, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (nutrition services).

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to introduce today in this House a bill to amend the Canada Health Act with regard to nutrition services.

This bill includes the expression "nutrition services" in the definition of health services provided under the existing Canada Health Act. We all know that nutrition is an essential component of health and that Canadian dieticians are the only health professionals duly trained and authorized to evaluate a person's nutritional status.

Furthermore, the Canadian government recognizes dieticians as key resources in developing health policies such as Canada's Food Guide, which sets guidelines for good health. I therefore feel that it is important, as much for the general public as for the order of dieticians, that they be formally recognized and included in the Canada Health Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Social Program Reform December 8th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, consultations undertaken by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, following the minister's tabling of his discussion paper entitled "Improving Social Security in Canada", are being held in Quebec this week.

We learned recently that the Conseil du patronat du Québec had polled its members on the best way to finance post-secondary education. The results of this consultation are published in the December issue of the CPQ newsletter.

We learn that almost three respondents out of four, 74 per cent to be more exact, believe that the federal government should fund students directly through loans and bursaries. This is yet another proof that the social program reform launched by our government truly meets the expectations and aspirations of the population.

Supply November 15th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support what my colleague said about the need to renew the railway industry in this country. I agree with him that rail transportation is very important to Canadian shippers. Canada's rail system is the third largest in the world and railways play a significant role in supporting other sectors of the Canadian economy and providing jobs for thousands of Canadians.

Our shippers face intense competition from global markets and rightly demand an efficient transportation system to help them flourish. Our exporters need lower freight rates to compete globally.

The railways have taken several initiatives to make them more efficient. They are attempting to sell or abandon their unproductive lines. For example, CN plans to convey its lines in northern Quebec, very likely to short-line operators. CP is currently in discussions with the Irving Group about selling part of its network in New Brunswick.

These sales would help to preserve rail access for some shippers and free the railways of lines on which they cannot become profitable. As my colleague pointed out, federal and provincial impediments to the creation of short lines from unprofitable lines of the Class I railways unfortunately exist. I also agree on including a review of this issue as part of our rail renewal effort.

The railways need to make progress on other fronts as well. They must continue to improve the service which they provide to shippers if they are to compete against truckers and U.S. railroads. The railways must also continue to improve their relationships with the trucking industry so that the whole transportation system can become more efficient for Canadian shippers.

But the railways alone are not responsible for making this improvement. Labour is a key factor in determining the competitive position and viability of the railways. A skilled and dedicated workforce is essential to the successful operation of a railway.

As my colleague mentioned, rail workers are among the highest paid in the transportation industry. Their collective bargaining power, based on the railways' historical importance, has enabled them to negotiate very generous wage rates and enviable job security provisions.

However, these agreements are no longer realistic in today's rail operating environment. The railways demand greater flexibility in deploying their labour resources than the current collective agreements provide. Employees and unions, however, want to protect the jobs and benefits which they already have.

Management and labour need to come to a common understanding of the current situation. The railways are struggling to be profitable, which makes it harder for them to achieve the efficiency that Canadian shippers will badly need as the 21st century approaches.

All stakeholders must contribute to the rejuvenation of rail transport in Canada, and our government recognizes that it has a role to play in this regard.

Government must create a sufficiently flexible regulatory framework so that the railways can maximize efficiency.

I agree with my colleague that the current system hinders the railways in several respects. They must go through a long and arduous process to implement decisions which, in any other sector, could be made on a purely commercial basis.

While recognizing the need to take into account the interests of shippers and the communities involved, we also should consider allowing the railways greater freedom to restructure and modernize their networks.

Both levels of government need to look at how they might simplify the rules under which Canadian railways now operate in competition with Canadian truckers and U.S. railroads.

Like my colleague, I think that the taxation regime is significantly more burdensome for Canadian railways than for Canadian truckers or U.S. railroads. The government should assess the importance of this factor in making the railways profitable.

As regards the industry structure, my colleague mentioned the government's consideration of the unsolicited CP Rail offer for CN's eastern assets, as well as the government task force on CN commercialization.

I take this opportunity to emphasize that government must examine all options for restructuring the railways, bearing in mind that corporate restructuring by itself will not solve all the problems of this sector.

I have pointed to areas for consideration by several stakeholders-railways, labour and government-in the efforts to renew the Canadian rail sector. The regional roundtables and national roundtable on rail renewal, sponsored by Transport Canada, which my colleague discussed, will be helpful in providing this government with input from stakeholders on its efforts in this regard.

In conclusion, let me reiterate that this government is making a great effort to rejuvenate rail transport, but all parties have a role to play. We must all come together to help ensure the viability of the railways, not just for their sake, but for the sake of the many Canadians who depend on them.