Debates of Nov. 28th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Health Care

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member pardons my laughing, the question he posed shows the absolute sheer idiocy that has been going on across the way.

When we think about it, we have heard about guarantees. We cannot deliver on guarantees unless we put in place the necessary infrastructure to do so. There has been no new money from the government on the issue. It has taken the money that the Liberal government put in for wait times, developing of the programs, for dealing with pilot projects and for dealing with health human resources, all the money that was put in, the $41.3 billion, as already has been reiterated, is in the budget.

When our government made a promise in the 2006 election about guarantees, we said we would have to put in new funding. We knew there would have to be new funding, not only for the guarantees, but for all of the pieces that lead up to making the guarantees possible. To say it was already in the 2004 budget means that the government does not even get it. The Conservatives do not even understand how to implement their promises.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is a really bad case of revisionist history. The member is so desperate to absolve the former Liberal government of cutting $25 billion in transfers to the provinces, she is so set on trying to do that in any fashion she can that she is trying to blame a government that came to office in 1984. She is trying to blame a government from more than 20 years ago for the problems in health care and for cuts in transfers when her government, the Liberal government, cut $25 billion in transfers to the provinces, much of that for health.

Why could the member not just answer the question that was asked of her before and explain how her government cut $25 billion in transfers to the provinces for health care?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member even understands what revisionist history is, because what we have been hearing from over there is revisionist history.

I do not know if the member understands. It was $75 billion over 10 years that our government put into direct transfers to provinces to reinstate the health care that was gutted by the last Conservative government. This is not going back in time to find an excuse. It is actually understanding cause and effect. If one does not have an objective way of understanding cause and effect, then one does not understand anything.

The bottom line is that it was a Conservative government that left the health care mess that we had to clean up. We put money back into it by putting over $75 billion in one shape or form into direct cash. That does not include any of the other things we did with provincial governments on projects et cetera to move the agenda forward. We had to put that money in because it had been taken out by the government prior to us. The government prior to us was responsible. Everyone knows that. I was not a member of Parliament when we were doing that kind of research within the Canadian Medical Association to see that that was indeed true. I was speaking against it at the time as a physician, not as a politician.

Those are the facts. The member can deny it as much as he wants but the facts are there. It is written in budgets and it is written in the history of this House.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

I am very pleased to rise today in this House as a proud representative and member of the Quebec nation. As such, I want to say that we will be voting in favour of the motion introduced by our colleague this morning.

We are convinced that as a nation, we also have the right to receive the money we need to serve our people. This money from the federal government belongs to us. We contribute by paying our taxes. Every week, benefits are deducted from our salaries. This money goes to the federal government, who should, according to plan, redistribute it to the provinces so that they can satisfy the needs of their constituents.

Susan Dusel, from the National Coordinating Group on Health Care Reform and Women, said:

When the health care system is cut back women get hit with a triple whammy. First, women tend to be the health care workers who are losing their jobs or are being run off their feet because of understaffing. Second, women and their children tend to be the heaviest users of the health care system. Finally, women have to pick up the slack when the state no longer funds health care services.

After all the promises by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health that there would not be any more interference in provincial jurisdictions and that the provinces would receive the necessary funding to cover their needs, we do not understand why we have to debate and vote on an issue like this today. This should have been sorted out a long time ago.

Unfortunately, it seems that since the Conservative Party came into power, it has forgotten what it always said when it was in opposition. It often complained about the Liberal government's intrusions in provincial jurisdictions. Now, the Conservatives are doing the same without thinking twice about it. It seems like second nature, as though this comes with being in power. With power comes the right to interfere in provincial jurisdictions just to use up all the estimates. The federal government prefers to spend that money on things that our provincial governments, the government of the Quebec nation in particular, would not spend money on.

I find this a shame. The government already has a hard time respecting its own obligations, in its own jurisdictions, and it continues to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It is unfortunate.

The government should actually invest money to meet the needs of its own clienteles, like the first nations, the Innu, the veterans and the soldiers who are still active. Recently, a number of veterans complained about not having access to health care, drugs and medical equipment. They are right. This situation is wrong. The government strongly urges them to take part in the war effort in Afghanistan, but it is a lot slower taking care of them when they come back from war and they are suffering from post-traumatic stress or some other disability. If the government took care of its clienteles and invested the money they are entitled to and if it gave the provinces the money owing to them, I am convinced that today we would not be thinking about parallel health care systems outside the public health care system.

In Vancouver, they have opened the first private clinic with a private operating room. Numerous studies, notably in England and New Zealand, have proved that in the private sector wait times are not shorter but on the contrary longer, and that it is the well off who take advantage of these private clinics.

We must not have any illusions about our physicians, nurses, surgeons and specialists continuing to work in the public sector if they have the opportunity to go and work in the private sector, where they can earn a lot more money.

I think that our governments must be able to pay these doctors properly, equitably and fairly. To do so, we have to have all the money owing to us. For Quebec, this amounts to $3.9 billion.

I hope that this government will have the boldness and the courage to settle the fiscal imbalance, which it has claimed it wants to do since last December. I hope it will be bold enough to let us work on helping those who are ill in Quebec, on helping our seniors and our young people who need services and support, not only for the major illnesses such as cancer but also the somewhat less serious illnesses, which are nevertheless very bothersome for our older clientele.

I hope that it will not be enough for this government just to talk about settling the fiscal imbalance, but that it will give us the means of being an accomplished and fully-fledged nation that takes care of its citizens with all the means coming to it.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today on the question of health care. We know that it is a major concern of Quebeckers, given the aging of the population.

What have certainly struck me since my arrival here in 2004 as the member for the riding of Trois-Rivières are all the financial problems that arise, regardless of whether it is agencies dealing with the status of women, or culture or the francophone communities. This debate is no exception.

The Bloc Québécois obviously recognizes that health care funding is inadequate. We feel that most of the health under-funding problem has to do with the fiscal imbalance, which deprives Quebec and the provinces of the revenues they need to meet their responsibilities. As I said, these responsibilities have increased because of the aging of the population and all the problems that are arising in health care.

The Bloc Québécois feels, therefore, that correcting the fiscal imbalance will enable Quebec to improve its services to people in its areas of jurisdiction and ensure, insofar as health care is concerned, that it has the equipment needed to provide highly advanced treatment. This treatment is always getting more and more expensive.

Last December 19, the Prime Minister of Canada solemnly promised Quebeckers that he would resolve the fiscal imbalance in the next federal budget. He knew very well what that meant. Now he has an obligation to deliver. If he does not carry out his promise in full, he will be the one who was pulling the wool over the eyes of Quebeckers.

Emergencies must be dealt with first and the financial pressures we are experiencing reduced. The transfers for post-secondary education, health and social programs must be increased and equalization enhanced. As the hon. member for Laval so clearly explained, health, education and social problems are all interconnected. We also know that finances are the sinews of war if we want to be able to provide adequate services.

We translate these needed transfers to Quebec and the provinces into a request for an additional $3.9 billion a year just for Quebec and $11.9 billion for all the provinces. In this regard, we are adopting the proposals in the Séguin report. In addition to improved equalization, after the transfer payments for health, education and social programs have been increased, they should all be replaced by transferring the entire GST field to the provinces as well as part of the federal government’s personal income tax base up to the amounts requested.

Finally, we must put an end to the federal spending power. As was recommended in the Séguin report, the Bloc Québécois demands an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation.

We continually have the same problem with many of the bills that come before us in the House of Commons. We face the difficulty that with its huge spending power, the federal government has so changed the Canadian constitution that it is hardly recognizable any more. We also look forward to seeing the fiscal imbalance resolved.

When Budget 2006 was introduced, the Minister of Finance promised to take a number of steps to correct it. Then, in September, he declared that the economic and financial update would include guidelines and a report on the progress of negotiations to correct the fiscal imbalance. Now, we see nothing but hollow words on the horizon; there is nothing concrete to correct the fiscal imbalance. Nevertheless, we can assure this government that we will continue to demand what belongs to us: a fair share of the taxes we pay to the Government of Canada. This is not a gift or a favour; it is only fair.

I would like to briefly discuss the September 2004 health care agreement. This agreement between the Prime Minister of Canada and the premiers of the provinces includes an annex called the Quebec clause. It is important that this clause allow Quebec to be exempt, and retain the right to opt out and full financial control.

In terms of the subject of this motion, a plan to reduce wait times, we know that Quebec has its own plan based on goals, standards and criteria established by relevant Quebec authorities to manage human resources in health care, as well as reforms to family care, community care and home care. All of these strategic decisions are best made by the government closest to the population.

We know that this approach, as well as showing respect for current practices, is also much more effective and means that time, energy and money will not be wasted.

Thus, getting back to this agreement, we were told that nothing should be interpreted as an encroachment on Quebec's jurisdictions. This health care agreement should be interpreted based on full respect of Quebec's jurisdictions. Clearly, for us to be able to meet all our health care objectives, Quebec must have sufficient, stable and predictable financial resources that are not tied to political factors or future elections.

It is important that the provinces have full decision-making authority regarding the measures to be established. I will give the House an example to illustrate my point. When I was working on the justice subcommittee on solicitation, I had the opportunity to travel across Canada and to appreciate how the problems vary and how the solutions differ. The problems facing prostitutes are very different, depending on whether they are in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. Thus, within Canada, the problems vary greatly and it is important to address them differently.

In closing, we could say that Quebec is tied up in the straightjacket of the fiscal imbalance, that it must make do with alternative solutions and exercise considerable imagination in order to provide services to Quebeckers.

In our opinion, any encroachment is unacceptable. The recent Canadian partnership against cancer is a perfect case in point. It is a flagrant example of encroachment, to be added to the existing long list.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. Then I have a question for the member.

I wish to remind the member that the motion deals with a wait times guarantee. The concept of a guarantee says that patients must be able to receive treatment in a medically acceptable maximum time for a publicly insured service. If it is not available in their own area, they must be given the option to receive treatment in another hospital or clinic or even outside their home province.

It appears that this would require non-medical expenses such as, for instance, the transportation and housing of the patients and their families and other ancillary costs. In addition, if it is out of the country, there may be some extraordinary costs. There does not seem to be any new money in the budget, nor is it promised by the government.

During the campaign, the leader of the Conservative Party said at his December 2, 2005 press conference that “the Conservative plan will be implemented right away”.

Since the minister of health says that the money for a wait time guarantee is in the $41 billion of the 2004 health accord and since the provincial ministers say that the health accord included nothing to do with wait time guarantees, I wonder if the member could advise the House of whether she is aware of any patient in the province of Quebec who has been given a guarantee and transferred to another facility, either within the province or outside the province.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem of wait times also exists in Quebec; that is certain. In the context of fighting cancer, we have had to send patients to receive treatment outside Quebec, for instance, to the United States. The Bloc Québécois is saying that whether it is a matter of wait times or a matter of providing care, it is up to the provinces to make decisions and to get full financial compensation, to receive the necessary funds in order to find their own solution. We will certainly be in favour of the Liberal Party motion because we believe that we need this money. We hope the allocation of this money will respect provincial jurisdictions.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague who spoke about the support for the motion, the important issue of the reduction of wait times to many Canadians across the country.

The Canadian Medical Association has researched and reported that over 38% of Canadian households receive unreasonable wait times to access a specialist and 20% of individuals report unreasonable access to advanced diagnostic procedures.

Without the commitment from the Conservative Party to move forward on its wait times guarantee to provide the provinces with additional funding, resources and infrastructure, could the member perhaps comment on how this has impacted many people living in her home province of Quebec?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how this has affected people in Quebec, but I do know that the waiting lists in Quebec are quite long, particularly for surgeries for older persons such as hip surgery or knee replacement surgery and so forth. We know that wait times are quite long and that with the population aging, providing health care is now very expensive.

When we say that the expenses are in Quebec and the money is in Ottawa, we are mostly referring to health care.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I realize the hon. member objects to national programs and initiatives such as our strategy to fight pandemics. That is known, even though most people agree that pandemics do not respect boundaries. I think the same logic goes to why the Bloc objects to the national cancer strategy, an autism strategy and other things that will benefit all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

Would the member agree that under the previous Liberal government, wait times doubled and $25 billion was cut from health care? Would she agree that the reason the Supreme Court said what it did in the Chaoulli decision was because of the lack of leadership and poor management of federal dollars by the previous government?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Certainly, I will agree with the motion today, to reduce wait times for medical treatments and to provide the necessary funds to achieve the objectives of the accord on health care.

For us, whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, it always has the same tendency to insert itself into our fields of jurisdiction and intervene where it has no role. It is always interesting to intervene in health care because we know how much that affects the population, to what degree it is intimately linked to people’s physical security and just how closely people follow government decisions in this field.

For our part, we say that the best way to settle this matter—the least costly and most effective solution—is to provide provincial governments with the amounts of money they need. That would enable us to reduce wait times and provide proper treatment.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, during the federal election, the member must have heard, as I did, the promises of the Conservative government. They said that once they took over, if the waiting lists and wait times were still in existence, Canadian patients could look for solutions elsewhere, even internationally, and the bills would be paid by the federal government.

I do not know if we have missed some information, but in my riding, we still do not have access to those services. We still have waiting lists and we have not been invited by the federal government to find those solutions or treatments either in Canada or abroad.

Does she, like me, find that this government is somewhat hypocritical or has she heard that these services exist in other regions of Canada?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that these services exist. In my opinion, whether it is provided by the Liberals or the Conservatives, the quality of service given to the Canadian public is the same, and it is very mediocre.

Auditor General

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Auditor General of Canada for 2006.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108 (3) (g), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Government Policies

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last year the callers to my office were wondering when the Liberals were going to address important issues.

We fought to protect our children from sexual predators by raising the age of consent. The new Conservative government has introduced legislation doing just that.

We promised to combat crime. The new government has introduced legislation to keep communities safer.

We promised to lower taxes. The Conservative government has already reduced the GST, and expect even more tax savings in the next budget.

For 13 years, the Liberals promised day care for children, but never delivered. Our new government provided parents of young children with $1,200 a year to help with the choice of day care.

We promised to address corruption, rife in the previous government. The accountability legislation of this new government is already passed.

Both governments made promises, but only our new government kept them. I am proud to belong to the new Conservative Party, a party that actually keeps the promises it makes.

Lucille Broadbent

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my sad but great privilege to rise in the House today to pay tribute, on behalf of my party, to Lucille Broadbent.

We who serve in this place understand the great sacrifices paid by our families in the name of that service. Few made that sacrifice more profoundly or more gracefully than the wife of Ed Broadbent. We who sit in the House of Commons are able to do so because of the people who stand behind us, who support us with their wisdom, their help, their patience and their love.

Those of us, who were so privileged to work with Ed Broadbent in the House and who saw his outstanding leadership here and on the national stage and the global stage, know that Lucille was always with him in every way.

The memory of Lucille Broadbent remains with us. We remember her and honour her for all that she was and for all that she gave.

Municipality of Sainte-Flavie

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the municipality of Sainte-Flavie has taken on an outstanding tourism initiative known as the Route des arts. Every year it attracts tourists from North America, Asia and Europe. As a result the village has completely changed. The residences have been done over, the streets spruced up and a number of specialty boutiques opened. Hotels, motels and restaurants have gained a remarkable reputation.

This summer, the Quebec ministry of transportation completely rebuilt the boardwalk along the river and made improvements to Route 132. This boardwalk has become a gathering point for tourists and the local residents. The only government infrastructure in poor shape belongs to none other than the federal government. Now barricaded, the dock poses a danger to anyone who dares walk on it.

This government boasts about wanting to move forward on regional development and is not even responsible enough to properly maintain its own infrastructure.

Bobby Girouard and Albert Storm

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Acadie—Bathurst, I rise in the House to mark the deaths of two Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, Chief Warrant Officer Bobby Girouard, 46, originally from Bathurst, New Brunswick, and Corporal Albert Storm, both with the battle group, First Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, based in Petawawa, Ontario. They were killed yesterday by a suicide bomber while travelling in their armoured car.

These deaths are a reminder of the daily danger faced by the military at work both in Canada and abroad.

On behalf of the NDP caucus and myself, I offer my sincere condolences to the families of Chief Warrant Officer Bobby Girouard and Corporal Albert Storm, to their friends and the military community.

The Environment

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was recently in Hinton, Alberta for the groundbreaking ceremony of its new eco-industrial park made possible through $5.5 million in federal funding. It is the first of its kind in Canada. Its eco-industrial zoning and development guidelines will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the same as removing 3,800 cars from our roads.

The layout of the park will also reduce pollution and waste as it is designed to optimize the waste of one business as an input for another. Already other communities across Canada have been expressing an interest in replicating Hinton's success.

Our government recently announced Canada's new clean air act. For the first time in our country, Canada's government is taking realistic action to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases to protect the health of Canadians and the environment. Decisions to regulate the auto sector and to support smaller initiatives like Hinton's eco-industrial park are examples of why my grandchildren will be able to inherit a strong, free and clean Canada.

Pierre Gemayel

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I returned recently from Beirut where, together with the member for Calgary Southwest, we represented the government at the funeral of the assassinated Lebanese minister, Pierre Gemayel. It was a most moving event where Christian, Muslim and Druze leaders came together in an extraordinary expression of solidarity, not only for a grieving Gemayel family but in solidarity with the bereaved Lebanese people, and which continued with a mass demonstration of 800,000 Lebanese in Beirut's Martyrs Square.

It is important for Canada, therefore, to support: a democratic, plural and independent Lebanon free from foreign interference or domination; the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; establishment of an international criminal tribunal to bring the murderers to justice; and economic assistance for the reconstruction of Lebanon.

This would be our most important legacy for Pierre Gemayel, Rafik Hariri, the Cedar Revolution and the Lebanese people.

Canada Map Office

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, recently, Canadians' right of access to paper topographic maps was protected by the Minister of Natural Resources because the former government was caught napping on mapping.

Canada has a distinguished history in map making and is a world leader in geomatics. Our country is currently world renowned for its innovative geospatial technology, grounded in what is probably the country's most historical profession, land exploration.

As soon as the minister was made aware of the former government's decision to close the Canada Map Office, he sprung into action and saved the program. In doing so, not only has our minister ensured continued access to maps, but he has increased awareness of the importance of maps to rural and remote communities, sovereignty, infrastructure, tourism, education, national defence and many more areas.

Maps are important. They are not only an integral part of our heritage but also of our current and future economy.

This House applauds and thanks the minister and Canada's new government for keeping Canada on the map.

Les Québécois

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, November 27, 2006 will forever be a historic day for Quebeckers. For the first time, the people of Quebec were recognized as a nation. The motion adopted by the House of Commons was accepted by an overwhelming majority of members.

This recognition, which we had long been calling for, acknowledges the fact that Quebeckers form a nation.

What distinguishes the Bloc Québécois as a political option in this House is that we see Quebec's future differently. It will be up to Quebeckers to determine their future.

The step that we have taken will inspire and guide the Bloc Québécois in its mission, which is still to defend Quebec's national interests and promote its sovereignty.

Pancreatic Cancer

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in June 2004, a constituent from my riding of Simcoe—Grey, Dick Aldridge, sadly passed away from pancreatic cancer. His wife, Betty Aldridge, formed the Dick Aldridge Pancreatic Charity.

I stood in the House in June of this year, two years after his passing, to bring attention to this tragic disease and in an effort to designate November, as it is in the United States, a federally recognized awareness month for the disease.

Pancreatic cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death, killing more people than breast cancer. As such, it is critical that the disease have a higher profile than it does right now.

By designating a month to an awareness campaign, the victims of this disease will be properly remembered and further awareness on this issue will only increase fundraising efforts in a desperate search for a cure.

I call upon the leaders of all parties to unanimously support my call for November to officially be recognized as pancreatic cancer awareness month.

Through awareness, we will work toward a cure.

Beaubois College

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to pay tribute to an international youth solidarity initiative by Collège Beaubois, an elementary and secondary school in my riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard.

In March 2005, 16 students from the college took part in a cooperation project in Senegal, and the college is preparing to repeat the experience in March 2007. This initiative has a number of benefits, such as making young people more aware of the reality in a developing country and enabling them to achieve tangible results such as providing learning assistance for Senegalese youth and establishing lasting connections with Senegalese schools. It also provides an opportunity to raise funds for projects initiated by our youth.

The young people at Collège Beaubois deserve to be commended by this House for their sense of solidarity and for what they are doing in Senegal, which is enabling participants to be ambassadors of our country's values and ideals and helping them become responsible citizens committed to improving the lives of those around them.

We need to encourage them to keep up the good work and express our gratitude to them for what they have accomplished.

The Conservative Government

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one year ago today, the Liberal government, paralyzed by the burden of years of corruption, finally lost the confidence of the House and was forced to let Canadians be the judge.

Canadians demanded a responsible government that treats taxpayers' money with respect. A government that seeks criminal justice instead of avoiding it. A government that takes national unity to the next level by respecting Quebeckers instead of trying to buy their votes with stolen money.

One year ago today, the House enabled Canadians to take their country back. May we always remember November 28 as the end of a sad era in Canada's political history. May we never travel down that path again.