Réal Ménard

[Economic Development, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in Montreal there are 10 community economic development corporations, known as CEDCs, each of which plays a coordinating role in its community. These corporations are important actors in industrial, economic, community and social development. CEDCs are thus a part of the Quebec model, which favours local development. Since the Canada-CEDC agreement expired March 2003, federal funding has been renewed three months at a time.

What is the minister waiting for before financing the CEDCs of Montreal on a permanent basis, as the stakeholders of Montreal are calling for?

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is now known that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the principle of this bill. We obviously recognize that any provision in the Criminal Code that facilitates the administration of justice is a positive thing.

This bill will contribute to the administration of justice, because it will provide additional guarantees with respect to sentencing.

Mr. Speaker, I believe you were a member of this House a few years ago when a heinous crime was committed against a young girl named Manning. There were a few difficulties at the trial because the way in which the bodily substances had been collected for establishing guilt was called into question.

If memory serves me correctly, we passed at first, second and third readings, in 48 hours, a bill on the creation of a national DNA databank and the administration of evidence in the case of DNA samples. It was done quite quickly. Public indignation was extremely high. At around the same time, in 1995, 1996, or 1997, we discovered with horror the influential power of organized crime.

I will turn 42 tomorrow. Imagine that. I must stop saying I am 41, with a birthday coming tomorrow.

I did not grow up hearing as much about organized crime as the member for Mercier, who has clearer memories than I of the commission of inquiry into organized crime. People came to know more about it, or at least people a little older than me, because of the CIOC. Things calmed down for a while, and then by the mid-90s our communities began to realize how much power organized crime again had.

We know that three conditions are required for organized crime to flourish: a relatively rich society, a society with well-developed means of communication, and a society where there are guarantees of rights. As far as communications are concerned, we know that ports, highways, and airports are unfortunately often the focus of those engaged in smuggling.

So where is the link between that and Bill C-35? It used to be possible for a judge to issue a warrant for collecting bodily substances from an inmate or accused. This would provide DNA profiles to be kept in a national data bank under RCMP responsibility.

The way DNA profiles were assessed, and the way they were taken, was governed by the category of offence. There were two categories of offence. The first was primary designated offences, where it was virtually automatic for a judge to order a DNA profile. This category of offence includes generally extremely serious offences under criminal law.

Now section 487.04 of the Criminal Code lists the offences, including those for which a DNA profile may be ordered.

The new bill adds to these sexual exploitation of person with disability, and causing bodilyharm with intent—air gun or pistol.

Also added are: administeringnoxious thing with intention to endangerlife or cause bodily harm; overcoming resistanceto commission of offence; robbery; extortion; breakingand entering a dwelling-house; and finally, intimidation of ajustice system participant or journalist.

Hon. members might recall that we had three bills to fight against organized crime. Bill C-95 was very important. I was the first member of Parliament to introduce an anti-gang bill. On August 9, 1995, in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, a car bomb went off on Adam Street, right across from the Très-Saint-Nom-de-Jésus church. A young man, Daniel Desrochers, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, was killed. That is why we started looking for the best means to dismantle organized crime.

The first piece of legislation we had against organized crime offences was Bill C-95, which was introduced by the then justice minister, Allan Rock. I think I am allowed to name him, since he is no longer a member of Parliament. The main offence that was mentioned in Bill C-95 was the criminal organization offence. If five or more persons were part of a group, or if these five persons had committed five indictable offences in the last five years for which the maximum punishment was imprisonment for five years or more—the three fives rule—we had a criminal organization offence.

Do you know what happened? Major gangs such as the Hells Angels, the Bandidos and the Rock Machines started spinning off satellite criminal groups. They recruited people who did not have a criminal record but who joined gangs in order to get their badge. It became extremely difficult for the Crown to lay charges under Bill C-95.

Bill C-95 was all the more difficult to administer because, a few years previously, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling, the Stinchcombe decision. This extremely important criminal law ruling imposes obligations on the Crown.

As we know, criminal investigations may last three, four, up to seven years. The process is an extremely long one. Under the Stinchcombe ruling, the Crown must disclose all of the evidence it has against the accused. That meant that a police officer involved in shadowing during an investigation, in a bar for example, had to table the notes that allowed the investigation to progress.

The Stinchcombe ruling was extremely controversial. Of course, coming from the Supreme Court, it created new law. The attorney general could not appeal the ruling. It made it very difficult to bring investigations to an end, and it thus became necessary to further refine the administration of evidence and hence the gathering of DNA samples.

So, we got Bill C-95. Then came Bill C-24 and Bill C-36. There was a lot of legislative activity in criminal law. Today the three fives rule has been simplified. An organized crime activity is described as three persons engaged in certain offences.

The new bill refers to journalism. Quebeckers or even people in the gallery might remember the attack on the journalist Michel Auger in the parking lot of the Journal de Montréal .

Mr. Michel Auger, a crime reporter, was victim not only of intimidation but of an attack on his life. As a matter of fact, it is the former member for Berthier—Montcalm, Mr. Michel Bellehumeur, now a Quebec court judge, who had suggested that bill include a reference to the intimidation of not only members of Parliament, police officers, judges and commissioners, but also journalists.

We want to see Bill C-35 go to committee as soon as possible.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question. I follow the Romanow report right from its beginnings until it hands on the torch to the Clair report.

The latter identified the reforms clearly. First of all, the Minister of Health must be aware that seven out of ten provinces held commissions to reform their system from the inside, and they have carried out that reform. The Romanow report says reforms must be carried out. This is true. The provinces need to have the torch passed on to them so that they may accomplish this.

The difference between the minister and us is that he suggests our fellow citizens need to be accountable to the federal government, whose share of funding is less than 16% but who would like to become the guardian of the health care system.

This is where we deviate from the Romanow report and the minister's position. We say that it is not true that the government, which makes a contribution of under 16%, will become the guarantor, the definer, the guardian of the system. There must, however, be reporting mechanisms, and the National Assembly will provide them.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Joliette who, as you know, is my former professor of economics—a most fascinating course.

Basically, when the Liberal government came to power under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was $18.7 billion. It has dropped as low as $12.5 billion. Today, as we know, the federal government's contribution is not even 16% for health spending.

This is utterly unacceptable, and I am counting on the Minister of Health to correct this situation.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to deny you prerogatives. You do the deciding when you are in chair. There is no doubt about that.

I think that the Minister of Health and member for Papineau—Saint-Denis will recognize that health will be to his government what the Rowell-Sirois report was to the last century, in the sense that it will provide an opportunity, the framework for nation building. The federal government will use the Romanow report in its effort to define health policies.

I have published an article in Le Devoir , which I hope the hon. member for Papineau—Saint-Denis has read. The four conditions for the partnership he proposed would be the way to nation building in the area of health, and that is something we cannot accept.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the intent of the motion before us today is to say that, when hospital insurance was introduced in the mid-1950s, we had a service delivery model which was essentially based on in-hospital care. I recognize that many services are no longer provided in a hospital setting.

The NDP motion is intended to recall that the federal government has acted unilaterally, without consulting the provinces, and in a cavalier manner, and transfers have been reduced from $18.7 billion to $12.5 billion. Accordingly the waiting lists for medically insured services, provided in a hospital setting, have grown longer and longer. Some services have become less accessible because the provinces were financially strangled, and the federal government did nothing about it. In certain provinces, this has created room for the private sector where none was planned.

It is hard not to correlate the federal government's irresponsible attitude with the appeal of private health care. I was in agreement with the minister when he said that no one should be able to jump to the front of the line because they have money. But at the same time, for this to be true, the federal government must take its responsibilities. What we are calling for is 25% in cash transfers of the cost of operating the health care system.

That is very clear. That is what the Romanow report says. I am sure that my hon. colleague from Joliette will have a question for me.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion moved by our colleagues in the New Democratic Party, and I will have an opportunity to answer the question the Minister of Health put to me earlier.

I must say that I was taken aback by his remarks, which struck me as somewhat petty and vicious, since there is no question of taking responsibility away from anyone, or playing partisan politics with the health care system. I think it was beneath him, as a minister, to say what he said. Since he became one the 24 lieutenants in Quebec for the Liberals—it is hard to tell who is in charge—the higher his hierarchical standing, the more demagogic he becomes.

That said, what is important to recall is that, by the end of the 1970s, the provinces were spending $11 billion on their respective health systems. Since 2000, they have been spending $56 billion, and it is estimated that, in 2010, which is really not too far in the future, they will be spending $85 billion.

It must be remembered that, when hospital insurance was first introduced back in 1957, the federal government had made the commitment to cover 50% of health care costs.

There is no doubt that the system has evolved in such a way that, currently, many services are no longer provided in a hospital setting. The fact remains that the so-called medically necessary and medically insured services account for a major portion of the services provided by the health care system.

If there is a single example of the federal government's ability to cause fiscal instability in the provinces—justifying ultimately the need for the people of Quebec to achieve sovereignty—the health care system is the best example.

When Jean Chrétien's government was sworn in in October 1993 et assumed responsibility for the nation's business, the CHST was $18.7 billion. Today, as we know, this transfer has been divided; since April 2004, there is a dedicated health transfer and a dedicated social transfer.

In the early budgets presented by the current Prime Minister, the ceiling dropped to a rather disturbing $12.5 billion. Thus, in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, the provinces obviously had to continue providing health services in a profoundly altered environment. We know that people are living longer, and living with debilitating diseases, and they want to remain in their own communities longer. Still, throughout all these years the federal government was decreasing funding, there was never any consultation.

Just now, the Minister of Health showed he has a lot of nerve. He has the nerve of a herd of wild bulls to rise in this House, his hand to his heart, with his soft little philosopher's voice, and tell us that in the summer of 2004, there will be a first ministers health conference, as if the government itself were not responsible for the mess in the health care system.

I have seen and I have read—I will mention it later as well—the speech that the Minister of Health gave in Toronto, talking about a new partnership and new conditions.

The Minister of Health talked about four requirements for the health care system. But they are responsible for the mess in the health system. And here I can make the connection to the New Democratic Party motion. In fact, if our fellow citizens have turned increasingly to the health care system, it is not because they believe in it philosophically; it is because of the federal government's cuts to health. Health transfers have declined from $18.7 billion to $12.5 billion, which means that the ability of the provinces to provide adequate health care has been seriously cut.

I would like to answer the health minister's question. He can act innocent, and resort to philosophy and rhetoric, but he will fool no one. The provinces are asking for one thing. The provinces have made common cause, something that is very rare in federal-provincial diplomacy. In 1999, 2000 and 2001, all the premiers—whether New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals or, of course, the premier of the excellent Parti Quebecois government, when they were at the helm in Quebec—were part of this consensus. They mobilized their civil servants. They submitted a report to the health minister and the Prime Minister of the day about the evolution of the health care system.

The premiers documented this report with econometric models with which the member for Joliette is familiar. In the years to come, even before offering any new services, all provinces will have to invest an additional 5% in health if they want to continue to offer just the same services, without adding even one more.

In the meantime, the federal government has disengaged, disinvested in health services. People wondered how it could be that the systems were working so badly, why there were waiting lists, and why people did not have immediate access to the health system they wanted. What were the consequences of this? The irresponsible actions by the federal government have increased the private sector's part in the system in all provinces. It was not that certain health services were no longer insured, but rather that people who could afford it wanted to have faster access to a system that was slowing down because the federal government had not met its responsibilities.

Before speaking about Quebec's Arpin report on the private health system, I would just like to remind hon. members of three figures. Even with the February 2003 agreement signed by the premiers, the federal government's contribution to health system funding—and I hope the hon. member for Shefford realizes this—will, after hitting its ceiling in 2005-06 with cash transfers of $24 billion, be no more than about 15%.

It is unbelievable, when we know that the government's commitment, when the first joint federal-provincial programs were signed in the 1950s, was to contribute 50%.

Secondly, for 2004-05, that is for next year, there is a cumulative shortfall. Looking at the 2004-05 level for the Canada health and social transfers in comparison with their initial level in 1994-95, and taking inflation into account, we will see that $14.7 billion is needed to bring these transfers up to where they ought to have been based on the initial 1994-95 levels. This is dramatic. Once again, it must be kept in mind that the provinces continue to be under pressure to deliver services to their populations.

In 2004-05, Quebec will be receiving a mere $200 million more in CHST payments than it did in 1994-95. That is absolutely ridiculous, especially considering the fact that Quebec has had to increase its spending on health, education and social programs by $9 billion. Meanwhile, the federal contribution is a meagre $200 million, or 2% of the additional costs.

This is the background of the situation we are facing: underinvestment by the federal government; a minister who puts on a philosopher's air and suggests, in a charming tone, that the government has taken its responsibilities, when in fact it has acted totally irresponsibly; provinces whose ability to provide our fellow citizens with services has been strangled.

Again, I refer to the motion by the NDP, our neo-Bolshevik friends, as we like them to be. In Quebec, a commission was struck which produced the Arpin report. It makes for interesting reading. I would like to quote two excerpts.

From 1982-83 to 1998-99, cuts in federal health transfers totalled $16 billion, or nearly two-thirds of the cuts in federal transfers in Quebec.

I spoke earlier of the 1995 to 1999 period.

For the period between 1995-96 and 1998-99 alone, the shortfall in health funding for Quebec totalled $8.2 billion.

The federal government reduced transfer payments from 1995 to 1999, while major changes were taking place in the health care system. It is not the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois or the NDP, but the scientists behind the Arpin report who reported an $8.2 billion shortfall. That is one comment.

I have a second, very interesting one to make, which, in my opinion, captures the quintessence of the Arpin report. I want to stress that point. It reads as follows:

It was observed that, between 1989 and 1998, the increase in the relative share of private health care spending does not originate in the categories of services funded mainly through public programs, but essentially in categories of expenditures that are mostly the responsibility of individuals, including seeking treatment from institutions other than hospitals, buying medicine and consulting practitioners other than medical doctors.

What does that mean? That means that in the mid-1990s, after Alberta, 30% of health spending in Quebec occurred in the private sector. I am not talking about private insurance, which was not a factor because the services were not insurable. That is not what we are talking about. It is not because there were fewer services in the hospitals. Of course the services had slowed down and the waiting lists were longer, that is for sure, since the government had made cavalier cuts to health transfers.

The reason private services increased in Quebec is twofold. First, more people consulted health professionals not practising in hospitals. Second—and my colleagues will not be surprised to hear me say this—the biggest reason is the whole drug issue.

I would like to quote the Arpin report again:

Private spending on drugs has increased from 32.3% in 1989 to 34.2% in 1998. This increase can be attributed in part to the significant increase in the price of drugs and in part to the increase in rates for pharmaceutical services—

Now, we really must talk. Hon. members know that of all the budget items for health, the one that has grown the fastest is for drugs, prescription drugs in particular.

What does that mean? That means that the federal government acted irresponsibly, in a cavalier manner and with obvious contempt for the basic principles of federalism.

When I was studying political science and the topic was federalism, we were told that a certain number of conditions were required in order for there to be federalism. There are two levels of government that are sovereign in their respective spheres. Obviously, there cannot be federalism if a government, namely the federal government, can destabilize provincial public funding without any consultation or any warning.

The fact is that there needs to be extremely serious reflection on the issue of drugs. At the Standing Committee on Health I tabled an order of reference with four very specific proposals. The first is on the entire issue of drug advertising.

We know that direct consumer advertising is not allowed under the Food and Drugs Act. There can be no connection made between a drug and a particular condition, no claims made in TV advertising that a product will cure this or that disease or disability.

The Department of Health has not been able to gain compliance with the Food and Drugs Act. Television ads contain more and more direct links between products and conditions.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have ever paid any attention to the Viagra ads. Who does not get the message, when someone is depicted as leaping with joy first thing in the morning, that he has had a great night. Imagine if there were a court challenge on this, it would not have been easily settled.

The federal government has not been able to enforce its own legislation. More and more, we are finding direct consumer advertising on television and in print. We know that advertising of this type is allowed in the United States, and it has certainly increased the tendency to take medication.

The second thing the Standing Committee on Health will have to consider is the issue of renewing patents. We in the Bloc Quebecois believe in intellectual property. We know that if a company, on the West Island of Montreal, or anywhere in Quebec—in Laval, for example, because there is a very strong biotechnology development there—spends $800 million to bring a drug to market, we agree that the company should earn a return on its investment. The problem, however, is that some pharmaceutical companies, when a patent expires, renew the patent without any real therapeutic innovation in the medication. Without questioning our international obligations under the TRIPS agreement, we must look at the way we deal with this reality.

Thirdly, the generic companies must be subject to regulation by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. There cannot be a double standard. We cannot say that we will examine the expenses of the innovative companies while allowing the generic companies onto the field without having to be accountable.

Those are the proposals my representative took to the Standing Committee on Health.

I could also talk about the whole phenomenon of Internet pharmacies. That is a very worrisome thing.

My conclusion, since time is flying, will be this. The best way to keep our fellow citizens safe from privatized health care is for public investment to be sufficient. On that matter, we have no praise for the federal government, which has withdrawn from this sector in a cavalier manner. What we are going to ask during the election campaign is for the government to assume its responsibilities, for it to contribute 25% of the funds in the health transfers to provinces, in order to provide and keep viable the public health system, which we in the Bloc Quebecois believe in.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was extremely surprised by the minister's speech because he left some things out. I would have felt better if the minister had made a clear commitment and agreed to what all the provinces are demanding—which also happens to be a recommendation in the Romanow report—that the federal government provide 25% of health care funding.

Hon. members all know the story. I will not go over it again because there is not a lot of time. Nonetheless, the one thing Canadians and Quebeckers want to know is how the federal government could be so negligent and refuse to fulfil its responsibilities with respect to funding. What is the Minister of Health waiting for to make a firm commitment whereby his government will contribute 25% of the cost of health care, as recommended by the Romanow commission?

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his literary correction. I know that he loves literature. He is a scholar. He is the mind of the Enlightenment. I thank him for making these corrections.

That having been said, there is no shame, as parliamentarians or as a government, to admit to making a mistake. One can grow by learning from one's mistakes. Today, if the government asked for the support of parliamentarians to recall this bill, we would give our unanimous consent. I know that we have with us today the Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, Donald Maracle, who is opposed to this legislation. When such eminent people are opposed to a bill, this should alert us. It should be like a yellow card, a warning.

It saddens me to see this kind of perseverance or unhealthy stubbornness in the government. I am saddened by the complicity of the parliamentary secretary because this is a man who had been somewhat flexible in the past. He was able to criticize his own government. I must say that these qualities are seriously lacking in the man today. He is still my friend—there is no need for hard feelings about this—but I think he ought to rise and ask for unanimous consent to have the bill withdrawn. We will give our consent. We will return to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. We will be able to count on the wisdom and erudition of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to improve the bill and, especially, to lay the groundwork for a true nation-to-nation dialogue with the first nations. This dialogue must be respectful of their development.

I do not know if I have already said this, but the reason we oppose this bill is that we do not think it provides the tools that can ensure real development of the first nations. Remember that all indicators, from the Laurendeau-Dunton report to the Erasmus-Dussault commission, tell us that whatever sector of activities is considered, whether it be health or any other, the first nations have not enjoyed the development corresponding to their legitimate aspirations and expectations.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will explain to you the link between the creation of sovereignist parties and this bill. The link is that Quebec has a bright future. If the first nations are given the means to achieve their own development, they will also have a bright future. That was the link. I am surprised it escaped you, but you have been kind enough to allow me to spell it out clearly.

In the 1980s, René Lévesque introduced a motion recognizing the right of 11 native communities to their own development. That was unusual. Few politicians were concerned with the future of first nations. It began in the 1980s. I said earlier that when the Constitution was patriated in 1982, the first nations were invited. Clause 35 of the bill, in 1982, recognized a number of rights for first nations.

We have to admit that this bill, like the bill on self-government and the last two or three bills introduced by the ministers responsible for first nations in Canada, is not respectful of what first nations are, and it is not worthy of the René Lévesque heritage or the Erasmus-Dussault commission.

We are concerned about the fact that 61% of first nations chiefs said they were not comfortable with this bill. I wonder if it is not our duty, as parliamentarians, to recall the bill in order to take some time to listen to what these people have to say. This is not something we should rush into.

A German philosopher once said that speed is the enemy of intelligence. I thought that would be of some interest to you, Mr. Speaker. Every time we, as parliamentarians, have rushed into things, we have failed to fulfill our responsibilities. Aboriginal issues are much too important for us to rush into anything. The hon. member for Quebec, who has looked into those issues, will ask me a question.

In conclusion, I will say that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, look forward to creating a real partnership that will give our first nations control over natural resources and development tools. During the economic crisis in the 80s, our communities were given development tools. At the time, the hon. member for Champlain was sitting in the Quebec National Assembly, under René Lévesque. In Montreal, these tools were called the Corporations de développement économique et communautaire.

What we must provide the first nations with are development tools tailored to what they are and what they need. Making the bill optional is not enough. This is not what they need. The bill does not recognize that aboriginal peoples are first nations. There is a significant test in the fact that 61% of first nations leaders, who are elected by their peers and who are authorized spokespersons for their community, do not support the bill. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary wanted to hide this fact. I am sorry, but when something leads the first nations to mobilize to the extent that I mentioned, it is not true that opposition parties do not have a responsibility to echo this in the House of Commons.

We believe that, if René Lévesque were with us, he would oppose this bill. We believe that, if Lucien Bouchard were with us today, he too would oppose this bill. Indeed, in every action that we took as a caucus, each time that we analyzed the needs of the first nations, we have endeavoured to consider them as full-fledged nations, capable of choosing their development. It is not true that this is what the bill is proposing. The best thing we could do is to recall this bill.