Réal Ménard

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on budget implementation. As you are aware, and I am sure the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is aware, this is a bill to amend eight acts, including the Canada Pension Plan, the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Fiscal Arrangements Act and, of course, the Employment Insurance Act.

As we know, employment insurance has been an indelible blot on this government's record, and I will speak about that later. I am sure that it will be an issue in the riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, where I just might do some door-to-door canvassing with my friend, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, although it is not our highest priority, as the hon. member will understand.

Let us begin at the beginning. We will spare no effort to keep the major social issues front and centre. This is a budget that has not failed to disappoint in areas where expectations were extremely high, in terms of social programs, health care financing, the expected amendment to the Canada Health Act and parental leave.

I will speak about the issue of rail transportation later, but for now I will say that the government was expected to follow up on Bill C-26. When there was a real government leader in this House, Bill C-26 was a high priority. We were very surprised to learn, without any explanation, that the bill did not outlast the former House leader.

Let us begin at the beginning. First, there is health. We know that all our fellow citizens are concerned about health. We know that the provincial premiers, no matter what their political stripe, have carried out a campaign for reinvestment in health. That campaign is not the idea or the sole idea of the Bloc Quebecois or the Parti Quebecois. All the premiers—the Liberals in Ontario, the Conservatives in the Maritimes, the New Democrats in the West, and Gordon Campbell in British Columbia—have asked the federal government to shoulder its responsibilities and increase health transfer payments to 25% of the actual cost of maintaining a viable system.

This is all the more important since there is a consensus. The Romanow report asked that transfer payments be increased to 25% of what it costs the provinces to provide these services. As we know, this measure was deemed so important by the premiers that, in recent months, the provinces have run a campaign in all the major dailies in Canada and in Quebec to ensure that the message is heard.

This is why, within a few days, it was believed in the various provincial capitals that the $2 billion announced in 2003 would be a recurrent amount. This would have been a reasonable measure. Of course, even if this had been the case, the provinces would still have received much less than the 25% they are asking for. As we know, the federal government is currently contributing, through transfer payments, 16% of health care costs.

There is a paradox in the Canadian policy, at a time when health is the major challenge for public administrations. We know that this is because people are living longer. It is not rare, in our activities as members of Parliament, to meet with people who are 100 years old or more. About a month ago, I read in a magazine that there are over 100,000 Canadians who are one hundred years old or more. Today, we are no longer talking about the third generation, but the fourth generation.

Individuals, in the House and outside it, who pay attention to what are known as the determinants of health have a good chance of living to 76 or 80 years of age; for example, these individuals eat a healthy diet, do not smoke, do not drink excessively and exercise to some extent. We hope the Speaker will be as or even more fortunate; however, the health care system must still be able to rise to these new challenges.

The major challenge facing health care is home care. There are, in fact, two major challenges facing health care: Home care—how will we keep people in their communities longer? Second, palliative care—how will we assist people at the end of their lives?

These are clearly provincial responsibilities, but they cannot be adequately managed if the federal government continues to under invest in health. What is most disappointing to the Bloc Quebecois—and I am certain that my NDP and Conservative Party colleagues agree—is that we had every right to expect the federal government to provide appropriate funding so the provinces can meet the needs of the public.

What we are seeing instead is troubling, to say the least. The government wants to make health care a tool for nation building. In his speech in Toronto, the Prime Minister said again that, during the next election campaign, he would make health a major issue. If this is true, if the Prime Minister, who is a member from Montreal, wants to make health a dominant theme in the next election campaign, I hope that his first responsibility as member for LaSalle—Émard and Prime Minister, is to make a substantial investment.

I want to express a second wish: that the Ontario Liberal caucus will get through to the Prime Minister and that the members from Ontario, Quebec and all the provinces will make him understand that he has a responsibility to intervene with regard to reinvestment.

That is not what is happening. Instead of ensuring that the provinces, which are the primary caretakers of the health care system, have sufficient resources to maintain a viable system, the federal government is engaged in nation building. It is multiplying its interventions in areas outside its jurisdiction.

I will give you some examples. First of all, the federal government wants to set up a Canada public health agency, as if public health were its responsibility. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that in each of the provinces there are people responsible for public health? Even in Quebec, in what were the regional boards and are now the health and social services agencies, there are people with responsibility for public health in each of the areas in which these agencies have been set up.

Public health is, when it comes down to it, seeing that our fellow citizens' lives are lived in the best health conditions possible. This involves of course such issues as epidemics, cardiovascular and sexually transmitted diseases, diet and mobility. Health can be assessed according to a number of factors, but there is one thing that is certain: responsibility for it must lie with the provincial governments, along with the municipalities.

What explanation can there be for the federal government's desire to set up a Canada public health agency? So much so that the Prime Minister has appointed, in addition to the health minister, a parliamentary secretary responsible for the Canada public health agency. This is one more example, if one were needed, of the fact that what interests the federal government is not people's health, not the well being of our fellow citizens.

What the federal government wants to do with health is to make it into a media opportunity, a high-profile opportunity for political gain, and that is what is of concern to us. If the federal government were really concerned about people's health, it would have increased transfer payments for health.

Now for another example of federal interference in health. Imagine, they want to have an immunization strategy. They have established the Canada health infoway, the Canada health research institutes and a strategy on diabetes. Bit by bit, file by file, they are nibbling away at the sovereignty of the provinces, in order to achieve nation building.

[Health, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberal health minister of Quebec said in the National Assembly was that there is no new money for health.

My question is for the Minister of Health. Can he give a yes or no answer to the people of Quebec? Does his budget include new money for health? That is not what the Liberal finance minister said in the National Assembly.

[Health, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the federal contribution to health care funding is clearly insufficient. We also know that Ottawa imposes more restrictions on Quebec today than it did when it was paying a larger share of the bill.

Will the Minister of Health admit that the federal government has not only reduced its funding of the health system, but it has also created more bureaucracy by adding more red tape?

[Food and Drugs Act, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because it is not so much a matter of discussing the bill as referring it to the Standing Committee on Health for further study. This is a motion the Bloc Quebecois agrees with and it will have our support.

I do, however, have a few comments to make. Of course we subscribe to the objective of better informing the consumer of calorie content, and particularly saturated fat content, and anything that can provide information to help Quebeckers and Canadians improve their diets is a good thing.

When we discussed this bill in caucus, however, the colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois were uncomfortable with the idea of supporting the bill in its present form, because we were not convinced it was workable.

Some of my colleague have used the example of Subway or other major chains, where there are multiple choices because of the number of foods and ingredients available. We wondered how it could be workable for owners of franchises or restaurant chains to provide the specific information listed in this bill.

No doubt some mid-way solution would have to be found. I understand that the restaurant chains have themselves indicated some degree of openness toward sharing this information and, in a number of the major chains, it is already available to consumers.

At the same time, we realize that every time it is a matter of providing the consumer with information there is a cost associated with it, and what is more arguments based on cost cannot be definitive.

When this House discussed tobacco labelling, and the possibility of having, not content information, but rather notices or information concerning the harmful effects of tobacco on packaging, I remember the major manufacturers and tobacco companies coming before the Standing Health Committee to tell us this was absolutely impossible. Yet, three years after regulation, we can see this was in fact totally feasible.

So the Bloc Quebecois attitude is that we want to see this motion go to committee. We feel it is important for the Standing Committee on Health to seek a workable solution that will make it possible to provide consumers with information. This is why we are going to support the proposal by the member for Scarborough Southwest to refer this to committee.

I know that there has been considerable support for the objective of this bill. I am thinking in particular of the National Pensioners' and Senior Citizens' Federation; the Association des diététistes du Québec, and the Ontario Society of Nutrition Professionals in Public Health. Several dozen groups in all supported the bill. The challenge for parliamentarians is to ensure, within an appropriate framework such as the Standing Committee on Health, that we seek a workable way to achieve that objective.

[Health, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there are 4,000 new HIV infections every year in Canada, and this represents $600 million in additional medical costs annually. The number of people living with HIV rose from 30,000 in 1993 to over 50,000 in 2002. Yet the funding for the Canadian strategy on HIV/AIDS has remained the same since 1993, $42.2 million.

Can the Minister of Health explain his refusal to act on the unanimous recommendation by the Standing Committee on Health urging the federal government to raise the annual funding for the Canadian strategy on HIV/AIDS to $100 million?

[Health, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, by demanding that Quebec and the provinces allow the federal government to interfere in the management of health care as a condition for getting back a share of our own money, which we need to sustain quality services, is the Prime Minister not engaging in despicable blackmail? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Health, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister confirmed his intention to invest new funds in health in the future, but only if changes are made to the health care system and if he agrees with those changes.

How can the Prime Minister justify not taking advantage of the federal budget to increase health care funding, when the needs are urgent and the premiers had advised him of the urgency of investing in this area, and to do so with no strings attached?

[The Budget, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. As you know, social housing is what provides our fellow citizens with accommodation for a reasonable portion of their income.

The federal government stopped funding this in 1993-94, when the first Liberal budget was presented in this House. There was no longer one red cent for social housing.

In the good years, 8,000 social housing units were built in Quebec with 50-50 federal and Quebec funding.

As hon. members are aware, Montreal has a 1% vacancy rate. Only 1% of rental housing is available for rent. If we look just at housing renting for $600 or less, the percentage is 0.4%. The housing crisis is more acute in Quebec than anywhere else.

Things are not much better in Quebec City. I am sure the hon. member for Québec will also speak of this, but the vacancy rate is not much different there, nor is it any better in Sherbrooke or Trois-Rivières. Nevertheless, the government manages to hang on to funds rather than passing them along to the provinces.

I have referred to phase two of affordable housing. Quebec has invested money in this, and as a result people can rent a two-bedroom apartment for between $350 and $500.

But I will leave an opportunity for the hon. member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis to ask me a question.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with the friendly and attractive member for Québec.

As you know, the budget was a huge disappointment. All the media, both anglophone and francophone, took a very realistic and relevant look at it. This budget confirms three major patterns of the government, including interference in provincial jurisdictions—and I will explain later what will happen in health. This is, of course, a budget that will allow the federal government to continue to generate surplus after surplus, but will not give the provinces any chance to fulfill their responsibilities. With this budget, the government is true to itself in that it does not respect the main priorities of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Why is it not respectful of Canadians and Quebeckers? Because, according to all the polls, health is the top priority for our fellow citizens, but this budget does very little in that respect.

To begin at the beginning, as we all know, there has been a campaign in the print media for several weeks now. It is not being carried out by either the Parti Quebecois or the Bloc Quebecois, but by all the premiers. This means the Liberal government in Ontario, the Conservative government in Newfoundland and the Liberals in B.C., among others. All of the premiers are urging the federal government to shoulder its responsibilities and to reinvest massively in the health care system.

As hon. members are aware, in the mid 1950s, when hospital insurance and the major components of the public health care system were put into place, the federal government committed to a 50% contribution to health programs.

Federal-provincial committees and senior public servants have carried out a non-partisan analysis to find out what the federal contribution was and came to the conclusion that the federal government's contribution was no more than 16¢.

Imagine, the government, which was meant to invest 50¢, is investing a mere 16¢ into health care. This is why the Quebec Minister of Health and MNA for Mont-Royal, Philippe Couillard, not a Bloc Quebecois supporter and most certainly not a card-carrying Parti Quebecois member, said the federal government was trying to set the priorities, even if it only funds 16¢ of every health dollar.

This is, in fact, the main danger for us in the years to come. The federal government's intent is to make use of health in its nation building exercise. It wants to construct a vision of Canada. It wants to encourage a feeling of allegiance. It wants to develop partisan networks around health, because it wants to be the one to set the priorities, without putting in the funding for them.

I will give an example that will surely please the members for Québec and Rimouski--Neigette-et-la-Mitis. It concerns the Canada public health agency. We need only examine its designation, or name, the Canada Public Health Agency.

Mr. Speaker, erudite as you are, can you explain the federal government's interest in health, outside of epidemics and veteran and aboriginal health, all areas for which everyone understands it has responsibility? Outside of these three areas, how can the federal government claim any expertise whatsoever in public health? Yet, it is now engaged in building a Canadian agency for public health. Already $660 million has been set aside for this.

Finally, the federal government has come up with $1 billion in new initiatives that are completely outside its field of jurisdiction. What the provinces have asked for, many times, was for it to increase its contribution.

I would also like to talk about another scandalous matter on which the Liberals have been cruelly silent. We know that in the big cities, there is poverty. It is true in Quebec City, Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. Our fellow citizens, the poorest among us, have become poorer while the rich have got richer. There has been no effort in recent years to establish ways to redistribute the wealth in a more adequate, fair or generous way. The opposite is true, in fact: the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

We know that in the big cities, the phenomenon of poverty is even more visible. What is the first variable that affects poverty? Access to affordable housing. First of all—and the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville can give us details—the federal government completely withdrew from the funding of social housing. There was a joint program under which the provinces and the federal government constructed social housing. The visible aspect of this is the presence in our communities of low cost housing. Those living in this housing pay 25% of their income.

Just imagine—this government has been so heartless, unfeeling and inflexible as to completely withdraw from the field of social housing. If the federal government had maintained its contributions at the same level as in 1993-94, are the members aware how many new social housing units would be available in our communities? With regret, I must inform the House that some 45,000 social housing units have not been constructed because the federal government has not lived up to its responsibilities and acted as a partner in this sector.

The Quebec government—if I am not mistaken, it was under Mr. Chevrette or Mr. Rémi Trudel—set up a special housing fund. It was known as the affordable housing fund and was available to the Quebec government. Without the Quebec government's contribution, social housing would have seen some serious setbacks.

More troubling still, Louise Harel—one of the most brilliant people in Quebec today—signed an agreement with Alfonso Gagliano. I do not want to comment on his contribution to public life, but Alfonso Gagliano, as the public works minister, signed this agreement with Louise Harel to implement phase one of the affordable housing program, for which $680 million was allocated. But, to date, only 24% of that amount has been spent.

Quebec implemented a program with the municipalities to spend this money. Quebec spent its share, but the rest of Canada did not. Phase two of the affordable housing agreement was signed and $320 million was allocated. Despite the fact that there will have been two July 1 crises since parliamentarians voted to approve those funds, not one province has received a dime.

How is it possible that there is a significant need for social housing in our communities, such as Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto, yet this money has not been made available? It is a true scandal with a human face.

[Health, March 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, part of the money the government earmarked for health will be used to establish pan-Canadian information technology structures that will make the system even more cumbersome, rather than streamlining it.

When will the government understand that the way to improve the health care system is not to inflate the bureaucracy but to put the money where it makes a difference, directly into patient care? Will the Minister of Health please rise?