Réal Ménard

[First Nations Governance Act, June 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, you will understand that we cannot address the amendments grouped by the Chair without first paying tribute to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

It is not every day in Parliament's history that dozens upon dozens of hours are devoted to improving a bill. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and other members of this House have done so, feeling that the amount of energy invested had to be at least equal to the amount of fixing the bill required.

For Quebec sovereignists, which is what we are, relationships based on equality, respect and recognition have always been extremely important. We know what being a nation is all about; we know what it means to aspire to real development; we know what it is like to want real development tools. Unfortunately, in spite of the hard work of committee members and all the energy they have put into making this bill better, it remains unacceptable.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has been extremely well advised to devote energy to this and to come to the conclusion that, after Erasmus-Dussault, and after the National Assembly, led by Premier Lévesque, passed a resolution recognizing the first nations, it makes no sense in 2003 to come up with a bill that is as colonial, backward-looking, old fashioned and disrespectful as the one before us.

During committee meetings, we experienced the gamut of emotions. We first hoped for collaboration, expecting to find among Liberals some sensitivity and openness to arguments from the opposition. Unfortunately, except for one, the member for Frontenac—Mégantic whom I wish to acknowledge because I believe he was in a different category in terms of the attitude of members of the committee, history will not look kindly on the Liberals. They proved to be dull-witted, narrow-minded, insensitive—

[Tobacco Control, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 2001, the member for Etobicoke Centre, who was then the Minister of Health, and the member for LaSalle—Émard, then the Minister of Finance, announced with great ceremony that over $480 million would be allocated over the next five years to implement a comprehensive, integrated and sustained approach to tobacco control. At the time, they said there would be stable funding, but less than two years into the program, $13 million has already been cut.

Why is the Minister of Health ignoring the financial commitments to Canada's tobacco control strategy made by her government in April 2001?

[Les Invasions barbares, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec cinema enjoyed an hour of great glory when Denys Arcand won the prize for best screenplay for Les Invasions barbares , and Marie-Josée Croze the award for best actress.

At Cannes, the director expressed his delight with this recognition, and particularly the warm welcome his film received from the public.

What impressed everyone in Quebec was that Marie-Josée Croze won the prize for best actress, ahead of Nicole Kidman, Charlotte Rampling and Emmanuelle Béart. Although a little disappointed to have missed her magic moment at Cannes, Marie-Josée Croze was still very moved by the various hommages she received.

The Bloc Quebecois congratulates Denys Arcand for the success of Les Invasions barbares , and Marie-Josée Croze for her brilliant interpretation. The Quebec cinema is a beacon of light both here and abroad, and everything must be done to make sure that it has stable funding.

Bravo to Denys Arcand, Denise Robert, Marie-Josée Croze, Stéphane Rousseau and everyone who worked on the film.

[The Environment, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, before discussing the motion per se, I would like to offer my best wishes to the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who is today celebrating his 58th birthday.

Our colleague's motion is, of course, far from insignificant, since it concerns two subjects of great public concern: health and the environment. This is a motion on environmental health.

There is not a single parliamentarian who could be insensitive to these issues. I know that the member for Windsor West has introduced the motion with the best of highly positive intentions. He has also pointed out that it was made at the request of his fellow citizens. However, on examining its wording, we in the Bloc Quebecois had a few questions I would like to share with members.

First, for those who may not have had the chance to hear what the member for WIndsor West had to say, I will repeat the text of the motion:

That this House call upon the government to take the necessary measures, including the drafting of legislation, to prevent medical conditions and illnesses caused by exposure to identifiable environmental contaminants.

The motion is therefore based on the principle that it is basically the responsibility of the federal government to be concerned with toxic emissions in the atmosphere and the negative consequences of these various elements' circulating freely.

The problem is that it does not strike the Bloc Quebecois as obvious that this is basically the responsibility of the federal government. I would like to see the hon. member for Windsor West analyze these elements. All the successive governments in the National Assembly, regardless of political allegiance, since there has been a department of the environment in place, have called for environmental management. In order to show just how relatively recent a concern this has been to legislators, I would point out that department was created by a Parti Quebecois government.

The late Marcel Léger was the MNA for LaFontaine, a riding in eastern Montreal and a figurehead of the nationalist movement. Hon. members may have heard of him. He introduced René Lévesque to various fund raising approaches, taking a page from the way diocesan funds were being raised at that time. Hon. members will remember the religious heritage of Quebec and how important the Church was in the social organization of Quebec at that time, and what an expertise it had developed for collecting funds.

Marcel Léger convinced his cabinet colleagues to create a Quebec department of the environment, with many significant legislative and regulatory instruments. Moreover, just recently, the Bloc Quebecois members reminded the government that Quebec has an environmental assessment act which is much more rigorous, specific and restrictive than the federal act. All this to say that, since the mid-1970s, every successive government in the National Assembly has called for management of the environment.

There is a problem with the motion put forward by our colleague, the hon. member for Windsor West, because it suggests that the federal government would be in the best position to battle all the problems of toxic wastes and environmental contaminants.

Naturally, I completely understand the argument that contaminants do not stop at federal-provincial borders. That is true. We are not saying that the federal government has no contribution to make. But the wording of the motion does not take into account the fact that, in the National Assembly, all successive governments since 1978 have called for management of the environment. Quebec is far from having a negative record in environmental management.

When it comes to reforestation, Quebec was the first province—I use the word province, but you know that that is not quite the right word—the first place to establish requirements for anyone destroying trees. For every tree that is destroyed, three more must be planted. In 1988, Quebec also set up a program to reduce industrial waste. It is relatively recent, but it does go back quite a bit nonetheless. It was Quebec's department of the environment that developed a strategy integrating all receiving environments. This strategy targets industry sectors that create contaminants and toxic waste.

That is not to say that every company in Quebec is perfect. Because of this, Quebec and the member for Gouin, an excellent environment minister in the previous government, have been very clear on Quebec's commitment to the polluter pay principle.

I listened to the member for Windsor West. I was very surprised to hear some of the figures he was used. I do not doubt their accuracy, but it is very worrisome. The member for Windsor West mentioned that inspections of 216 facilities in Ontario revealed 416 environmental violations.

The member for Windsor West is right when he says that we as legislators must be vigilant. Despite all of the legislation that exists in Quebec and elsewhere, there are still corporations and businesses that are not following the rules, that are disregarding and polluting our environmental heritage.

That said, what is most important is the jurisdictional issue. I feel that the member has not taken into account—and here I must agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health—the existence of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, specifically sections 64 to 103. Of course, this legislation is not doing the job. It has been reviewed before and there will be more reviews in the future.

Again, our colleague's motion was based on good intentions. He gave us the example of what was happening in the Great Lakes. This motion was sparked by the actions of his constituents and I know that all members of the House like to be attentive to what their constituents have to say. That is how democracy works best.

However, the Environmental Assessment Act has very clear provisions on toxic substances. There is a mechanism for investigation. There is even the possibility of conducting investigations and using various means to bring those who break the law into line.

In the Environmental Assessment Act, there is an entire section on toxic substances. Sections 64 to 103 set forth the legislator's intentions, which include establishing a deadline to react and take follow-up measures with regard to the requirements related to classification and tests for assessing the potential mortality, human health and environmental risks of all substances on the internal list.

I realized something. I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary will agree. When we were reviewing the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, a professor from UQAM explained to us that what we are doing to the environment causes endocrine defects, which is contributing to the growing infertility rate among Canadians. As we know, one in five couples has fertility problems. This was duly taken into account in the legislation the government introduced.

I will conclude by saying that we have to be concerned about environmental contaminants because they have consequences for every aspect of life, including the food chain.

Furthermore, we have to make sure that the legislation is being enforced by the right parties. And that means the provinces, especially when it comes to health. That is why, unfortunately, we cannot support the motion put forward by the NDP.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Chair, I would ask my friend, the Minister of Health, to whom I wish all the best, if she can undertake to table, for the benefit of all members of this House, the original agreement.

I maintain that, for hospital and medical services, it was 50-50. I am thinking here of the position of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville and of all government members. There is someone here who is unwittingly misleading the House. Personally, I maintain that the funding was 50-50.

I am asking the minister in a friendly way to show intellectual rigour and to table the agreement. We will read the agreement because all premiers, including the Conservatives, the Bolsheviks and the sovereignists, said that it was 50-50. The federal government is the only one saying that the original agreement was not 50-50.

Since I know that the minister does not want to mislead the House, what she has to do is to table the original agreement. I do not know if she has it in her briefcase. If not, she can go to her office to get it and table it tonight. I will bet her a beer that it was 50-50.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Chair, I enjoy listening to the minister. It is always an experience in personal growth. She is a font of information. Even though she may wander in her comments, she can always be brought back to the subject at hand.

The Romanow report takes the position that the federal government is best placed to come up with initiatives in health, but we believe that the provinces are better able to do so. The best test of this is that we believe, as does the National Assembly, in the five principles of the Canada Health Act, with a few subtle differences on the issue of portability.

I would like the minster to give us an update on this. Have there been any violations by the provinces that she could share with us? Second, does the minister agree that there is a paradox in Canadian federalism, in that the money is in Ottawa, the provinces have needs, but the federal government is cutting back in terms of its commitment?

Those who saw the public health care system being set up recall the commitment made by the federal government to pay 50% of the costs. Today, it pays 14 cents for every dollar spent on health care. Yes, there has been some increase, but it is not 50-50.

Can the minister make a true commitment and say that she will work very hard to convince her cabinet colleagues so that, in the not too distant future, the 50-50 funding will be restored, which was the objective of those who built our public health care system? I would appreciate short, meaningful, precise and honest answers.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

But that is not my question.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, for those watching us at home, we are now engaged in a process that has us sitting as committee of the whole; we are not examining a bill. A little earlier, some people from outside asked me this question. What we are doing this evening is examining the funds allocated to the Department of Health, which amount to just over $2 billion, of which $1.4 billion will go to aboriginal peoples.

I will have five questions to ask of the minister and I will ask them all at once to give her time to reply.

In the last budget, for 2002-05 it was planned that an additional $8.2 billion would be invested in health initiatives, of which $6.5 billion would go directly to the provinces.

There was one interesting point. The budget said that there would be an additional $2 billion in 2003-04 if the financial situation was positive. I would like the minister to tell us if she is optimistic that, in addition to the amounts budgeted, the provinces could have the $2 billion that the Minister of Finance and member for Ottawa South promised to reserve for the provinces. Is the minister optimistic today?

My second question is this: 50% of the budget allocations we as members are voting on will go to the first nations. I understand that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility for the first nations.

Thirty years ago, when the Laurendeau-Dunton commission report was released, you could see that those who were in poor health, those whose lifestyle factors ranked them at the bottom of the development scale, were the aboriginal peoples. We may wonder; this is quite a lot: 50% of the budget of the federal health department goes to the first nations. When we look at the first nations, when their spokespersons appear before us—the parliamentary secretary will remember that we had the opportunity to discuss dental health among first nations people—one does not have the impression that the situation is improving in proportion to the energy expended and the desires expressed by the hon. members. We all hope that the first nations will be able to achieve a much better quality of life than they have now.

There is, of course, the bill on first nations governance that should not be forgotten. That is a very, very bad bill. It absolutely does not permit the tools of development to be given to the first nations, but that is not this minister's fault, despite cabinet solidarity. I saw her applauding in Edmonton when the former Minister of Finance said he was not in favour of the bill.

It was quite a display for the minister in contrast to the stoicism and self-control she has been used to in her profession, as a lawyer. I saw her applauding like crazy in Edmonton when the former Minister of Finance announced he would not implement this legislation.

I want the hon. minister to know that I will not give up on this issue. I would like her to update us on her understanding of her department's role as far as the first nations are concerned. This is very important; half of the budget concerns the first nations. There is much catching up to do, as I said. At the time of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, the first nations ranked last in terms of development, and I do not think that they are faring much better today.

Allow me to digress to say hello to constable Baronette and his spouse, Nicole Sabourin. Make sure he gets a warm welcome home tonight because he is working hard here. He is on duty on the hill, and he is a little tired. We may be sitting until midnight, and all constables deserve our friendship in these difficult times.

This brings me to my third question. I have a little criticism for the minister on another topic besides aboriginal health and the contingency reserve, to which I hope the extra $2 billion promised to the provinces, if the economic conditions permit, will go. As everyone knows, as part of our work as members of Parliament we make representations to the federal government. Sadly, I have a case to submit to the minister without getting into the details, for her to take under advisement.

I am talking about the case of Dupuis-Magna Cosmétiques, which has been asking for the past seven years for a new drug to be approved.

As a member, I have been trying to talk to a public servant for the past two months, and I have not yet been able to do so. I will not get into the details, because I do not want to cause trouble for anyone. But I find it strange that someone has been trying for seven years to obtain approval to market a product available in Germany and the United States. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that Health Canada's bureaucracy is causing problems for this individual. I hope that the minister will also provide guidelines so that all parliamentarians have access to public servants. It is not normal that, as a member, I have been trying for two months to speak to someone, and I still have not been able to do so.

I am coming to my final question. It concerns the Romanow report. I want to say a few things about this. This report was criticized by several provincial governments, including the Quebec government, which had created the Clair commission.

It would be interesting to know one thing. Can the minister tell us something? In the Romanow report, there is a presumption that the provinces are not accountable, that they are not responsible and that they are mismanaging the health care system. It is difficult to understand how the federal government, which is not an expert in health care, except when it comes to aboriginals, the armed forces, research and epidemics, could be demanding a greater role and how it could have more expertise than the provinces.

I want to ask the minister the following question. Each province, in my opinion, has accountability mechanisms in place. There are parliamentary commissions and question periods in each legislature. I want the minister to give us a list. Were many violations of the Canada Health Act by the provinces brought to her attention? Could she enlighten us in this regard?

Should she not distance herself from the Romanow report, which is a tool in nation building? Should she not say that, as Minister of Health, those who know the most about health care are the provincial governments and not the federal government?

Does the minister recall that when the hospital insurance system was created in the 1960s, the federal government contributed half of health care spending? Today, the federal government contributes 14 cents of every dollar spent on health. Can the minister distance herself from the Romanow report, and commit to respecting the 50-50 ratio and stop trying to use the health care system for nation building?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, the minister should seek my presence more often. I am easy to work with and I am sure that in these types of discussions, even though I do not pretend to be an expert, I could help. I respect her desire for intimacy with the new minister, and I mean political intimacy, of course.

I would like to go back to the issue of the Krever commission. I think that the minister was not responsible for the Krever report at that time; she was Minister of Justice. You know how important the Krever report was to all parliamentarians, especially the first recommendation contained in the report. This commission of inquiry cost millions of dollars, but it was necessary. We know what happened in blood banks in the late 1980s.

The Krever commission recommended that there be a no fault compensation package. This recommendation created a lot of hope for Quebeckers as well as for Canadians. The former Quebec minister, Pauline Marois, a most endearing woman—who, I should add, knows what the future has in store for her—and the previous provincial government had introduced a compensation package, a fund for those people who were infected through blood transfusions.

If I have had one disappointment in my public life, it was seeing how this government showed no empathy and no consideration for those who were infected. My question to the minister is this: what is she waiting for to follow up on the first recommendation of the Krever report, which calls for a compensation package for all those who were infected, regardless of the chronology of events? It would be a great act of humanity that would enhance her stature as a minister.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I accept the minister's idea, particularly since I asked her a question on the funding for Quebec because she was listing what had been passed in the budget, which we already knew. I know that she meant well by sharing that information with us.

I will, however, raise some other questions because this is such a golden moment, to have a direct contact with a minister who was not know for faithfully attending the health committee. I will ask two more questions, if she is agreeable.

I contacted her about cigarette smuggling. I had received information that this was a common practice in certain parts of Canada, including some reserves. I was on the committee when we revisited the whole matter of mandatory labelling. I presented her with examples of cigarette packaging that did not meet the labelling requirements, as the standing committee required. The minister looked into this, and was suppose to get back to me. Perhaps she could take advantage of this opportunity to bring us up to date and reassure everyone, manufacturers and consumer associations alike, that there will not be two standards, that everyone will be subject to the same laws and regulations.

I have a second question on this aspect. The previous Government of Quebec was one of the best that ever served. I know my good friend, the member for Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, may feel otherwise, but it was a good government. We will judge the new one according to what it comes up with. Can the minister tell us whether she has had representations to indicate whether the new health minister was any more kindly disposed to the reproductive technology bill than the old?

She will recall that, although serving as a go-between is not my style, I forwarded to her a letter in which the Government of Quebec opposed Bill C-13 on reproductive technologies. Has she received any representations that would indicate that the new government is any more in favour of it?