Pauline Picard

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Without condition.

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my Reform Party colleague for his excellent speech.

I am wondering about the government members. Why are we not hearing more from them during the question and comment period? What I think is that they do not have it in them to defend their own system. They would rather slip it past us, as my colleague said earlier, cloaked in the more palatable Canada social transfer, and tell us, as the Minister of Finance did, that the new transfer will give the provinces much greater flexibility in running their own health systems.

When it comes time to make cuts, they slash the Canada social transfer by $6 billion annually. Then they tell us they will give some of the money back. They tell us that they can see that the provinces are perhaps having a little difficulty running the health care system. They will be good guys and give some of the money back, instead of cutting $49 billion—for that is what it would have been in 2003. They have changed their minds because that is what the opposition parties, medical bodies and the National Health Forum want.

They told us they were going to put some of the money back but that is simply not true. I would like my Reform Party colleague to tell us what he thinks of the federal government's tactics.

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the opposition motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, which reads as follows:

That this House urges the government to respect provincial jurisdiction over health care management, to increase transfers to the provinces for health care unconditionally, and to avoid using budget surpluses to encroach upon the health care field.

It is sad that we have to move heaven and earth to make the government understand things that should normally be obvious when we are just two weeks away from the tabling of the federal budget. Nevertheless, the poorly hidden agenda of the Prime Minister and his Liberal government makes such a debate necessary.

The motion before us includes the following three elements: respecting provincial jurisdiction, increasing transfers unconditionally and using budget surpluses more efficiently.

The only thing to do is to restore transfer payments for health care and social services unconditionally. The provinces want more money put into health care and they want the federal government to let them manage the health care system according to their priorities, as stipulated in the Canada Health Act.

I would like to quote from a short text which reminds us of the federal government's role in the area of health care:

The respective responsibilities of the federal government and the provincial governments with regard to health care are very different. Strictly speaking, the federal government cannot re-establish and maintain a national medicare system because it does not have the power to regulate delivery of health care to individuals.

Indeed, under the Canadian Constitution and the interpretation courts have given of it, health is mainly a provincial jurisdiction. The only clauses in the Constitution which explicitly refer to health establish the federal's jurisdiction over navy hospitals and quarantine.

The federal government only maintains health services for groups which come under its jurisdiction, namely natives, the population of Yukon, Canadian armed forces, veterans as well as inmates in federal penitentiaries. Provincial governments are responsible for establishing the number of beds available in their respective territories, which categories of personnel will be hired and how the system will serve the population.

As well provinces approve hospital budgets, negotiate fee scales with medical associations and administer their health programs within their own territorial boundaries.

It seems quite clear to me.

The show of strength of 1982 confirmed the distribution of powers as established by the Constitution Act of 1867. This same act, in sections 92(13) and 92(16), gives jurisdiction to provinces over health matters except in a few precise areas. The role of the federal government regarding health care is to redistribute money. The federal government raises funds through taxation and redistributes that money unconditionally as transfers to provinces.

Again, health is a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government has no right to interfere in any way, nor is it allowed to interfere in education with its millennium funds.

In the past, the finance minister seemed to be more mindful of provincial jurisdiction in health care. According to the minister himself the greater freedom of action of provinces in their own jurisdictions was even one of the reasons why he established the Canadian social transfer.

Indeed, when time came to cut, the good old finance minister said:

We believe that the restrictions attached by the federal government to transfer payments in areas of clear provincial responsibility should be minimized. ...

Provinces will now be able to design more innovative social programs, programs that respond to the needs of people today rather than to inflexible rules.

He sings a different tune now.

Whatever happened to these nice principles of freedom of action and respect for jurisdiction? Once again, we are witnessing this same paradox: the federal government is shamelessly skirting its own laws while a sovereignist political party from Quebec is fighting to get respect for the Canadian Constitution.

The federal government must restore its contribution to front line health care services through the Canada health and social transfer current arrangements. To do so, it must bring it back to the same level as before the reckless cuts unilaterally imposed by the Liberals, who thus managed to have others do their dirty work.

These cuts by the federal government have contributed to the gutting of the health care systems in provinces already reeling from the freeze on transfer payments imposed by the Tories.

Last August in Saskatoon, all of the premiers reached a consensus calling for the federal government to reimburse the annual amount of $6.3 billion. Now that the government has surpluses, funding must be re-established at the 1993-94 level, namely $18.8 billion.

The Quebec government and the provincial governments are not the only ones pointing an accusing finger at the Liberals for the problems experienced by the health system and calling for immediate reimbursement. Organizations representing front-line health workers have also identified the federal government as being the main one responsible.

In a press release dated September 22, 1998, the Canadian Medical Association stated:

Federal funding cuts to health and social transfers to the provinces have been the main barriers for Canadians' access to quality health care and the cause of the greatest crisis in confidence in our health care system since the inception of Canada's Medicare program in the 1960's.

This is not the sovereignists talking, but the Canadian Medical Association.

Again yesterday we received a press release from the President of the CMA calling upon the provincial premiers and territorial leaders to stand firm in their demand for full restoration of federal transfers for health care funding that have been cut by the federal government.

The association is also calling for the transfers to be indexed to reflect the increased costs of new technologies and the ageing of the population.

In a press release on August 5, 1998, the Canadian health care association said:

The federal government must immediately inject funds into the Canada social transfer and index it so it is able to meet the needs of a growing and aging population.

We recommended that the $12.5 billion be a floor and not a ceiling ... the increase in the transfers to the provinces should strengthen the health insurance system, and the money should be invested where it is likely to have the greatest effect.

It is important to understand that the effects expected are on the health services provided by the provinces and not on the federal government's visibility.

William Robson, senior political analyst at the C.D. Howe Institute, said:

Provinces will add money to their systems more easily if Ottawa has not already grabbed the tax room. And provincial managers will focus on the details of delivering health services better if they are not sitting in Ottawa negotiating with bureaucrats who may be thousands of miles from the action.

These are not our words. He even adds that, on the subject of health care in Canada, the right prescription is coming from Lucien Bouchard, not Ottawa. However, the federal government is again reverting to old reflexes: arrogance and encroachment.

I am going to conclude, because I have one minute left.

Since I have only one minute left, I wish to propose the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “encroach” the following:

“further”

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

I apologize for this breach of protocol, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, we heard the member for Saint-Maurice, our Prime Minister, say on television “Come and visit Canada, the greatest country in the world.” This country is the home of 1.5 million unemployed and another 1.5 million children living in poverty, yet he brags about there being no quarrels, no problems, all being well and harmonious between the provinces. Come on, what planet does he live on?

The number of homeless people is growing, as one can see on the streets of Toronto. I saw it on CPAC last week. It is incredible to see that more and more people are forced to live on the street. And we do not have any program for these people. Yet, when travelling abroad, we claim to be living in the greatest country in the world, when in fact, from coast to coast, our health system is being dismantled because we are not getting the money that belongs to us as taxpayers.

That is unacceptable, and I hope that the government and its members will realize what is going on.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Finance on pre-budget consultations.

I said I was pleased and I am pleased to take part, but perhaps not happy to enter into the debate to once again try to show the government how wrong it is and how it is building a surplus on the backs of the most disadvantaged, the sick, the poor and the unemployed.

This report marks the start of a new age, that of Liberal arrogance raised to new heights. The Bloc Quebecois vigorously dissociates itself from the Liberal report, which is nothing more than a semblance of democracy, than propaganda by the Minister of Finance. The report is centralizing and makes a mockery of the provinces.

From the number of measures announced in health care and education, we are guessing that the secret wish of the Liberals is to govern a province.

The report by the Liberal majority says that only the Liberal government is right and that Quebeckers and Canadians appearing before the committee were wrong.

The report by the Liberal majority distorts reality in a number of respects, in saying that the Canadians consulted wanted the Minister of Finance to voluntarily hide the surpluses under the guise of prudence, surpluses we estimate at $15 billion for this fiscal year, whereas the Minister of Finance estimates them at a maximum of $4 billion.

Last week, two female journalists were interviewed at a TV station and they commented on the pre-budget consultations. They are editorial writers very well known in English Canada. These women reported exactly what would appear in the budget. According to them also, the budget surplus was higher than what the Minister of Finance had said.

From one week to the next, his story changes from $5 billion, to $3 billion, to $7 billion, but I think he has led us to believe it is a bit over $4 billion. These journalists said “We are going to tell you what is in the next budget”, whereas normally a budget must be kept secret until its release. They then set out to tell what would be in the budget, and it was totally believable, because there has already been a kind of leak and everyone is talking about it now. So it will be no surprise.

It is known that $3 billion will be used for debt reduction. Another $2 billion will go for health, provided the provinces bend to the will of the federal government. There may be $2 billion, but if the provinces refuse, wishing to respect the Constitution, health being a provincial jurisdiction, the federal government will make it just $1 billion for the entire health system across Canada. We call that blackmail.

So we have $3 billion, maybe $2 billion for health, and another $2 billion, for they are going to lift the hidden tax on middle-income taxpayers.

Adding these figures together, I get $7 billion, apart from the billion or so to be invested, or already invested, which will also be in the budget. That makes a little more than what the Minister of Finance tells us, a bit over $4 billion.

All the problems in the health system across Canada are essentially a result of the brutal cuts by the federal Minister of Finance, the $6.3 billion yearly since this government has been in power. Page 64 of the Liberal report states, and I quote:

By reducing the health services they provided, the provinces challenged one of Canada's most cherished national symbols.

This is the height of arrogance, when we know that the federal government has dumped its deficit onto the backs of the provinces, the sick and the most disadvantaged.

The Bloc Quebecois finds it unfortunate that, when it comes to health, there is no mention of the social union agreement signed by all Canada's premiers at the meeting in Saskatoon. Provincial premiers are calling on the federal government to return to the provinces the $6.3 billion in cuts to the Canada social transfer. That is not mentioned in the report. That is not important. The 10 premiers want to see social transfer payments back at what they were when this government came to office in 1994.

This money does not belong to the federal government. It comes out of taxpayers' pockets so that we can have decent social programs, and health care is a provincial responsibility.

So the federal government should give the money back to the provinces. That seems clear to me. But no, cuts are made and the provinces left to deal with the repercussions at their level, while health costs continue to rise because of the ageing of the population and the acquisition of new technologies. The provinces are told that they are running the system badly, that it is their fault they have been cut. They are told that, if they want money, they can have it, but only if they get down on their knees. It is unbelievable.

I hope that those listening will understand the situation, because it is not acceptable. This arrogant government is boasting how well it looks after us. All that matters to them right now is to make it into the history books. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien wants visibility in everything they do. They could care less about the disadvantaged, the unemployed and the ill.

Quebec was cut almost $2 billion annually, $1 billion of it in health. In just one term in office, Jean Chrétien's policies have cut federal government health payments by almost half.

Jean Chrétien is going around—

[Health, February 1st, 1999]

What a lot of nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

The five tenets of Canada's health system are: public administration, universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness and portability.

Are we to understand from the behaviour of the federal government that it is unable to ensure these five tenets and wants to add a sixth, its own visibility?

[Health, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the intentions of the federal Minister of Health are clear. He wants to control the provinces' exercise of their constitutional rights with respect to health.

Will this federal interference in health matters not mean more public servants, statisticians and inspectors, rather than more doctors, nurses and clinical staff, which is what the public really wants?

[World Aids Day, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, December 1 is World AIDS Day.

AIDS has been a part of our collective reality since the early 1980s. Who among us does not know or know of someone who has contracted the virus?

Every day some 11 people become infected with HIV in Quebec and Canada. Of course, the face of AIDS is changing, and today it is more closely associated with intravenous drug use. But make no mistake. When AIDS strikes, it strikes hard and indiscriminately.

That is why, on this occasion, I want to reiterate that prevention remains our best ally against transmission of the AIDS virus.

In addition, the network of community groups, which support, comfort and help those infected and their families on a daily basis, is the cornerstone on which we can base our actions and interventions.

To all those who are involved in this fight, I say a big thank you—

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at second reading of Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas, and the amendment proposed by the Reform Party. We will not support the bill, and I will explain why.

First, instead of relying on dialogue, as in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government wants to create marine conservation areas, regardless of the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over the protection of its territory and over environmental matters.

Second, the Department of Canadian Heritage is proposing the establishment of a new structure, the marine conservation areas, that will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada's protected marine areas.

In short, the federal government, which claims to have met all of Quebec's demands, and which states in its Speech from the Throne that it is putting an end to overlap and to interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction, has now found a way to divide itself into three components and to actually overlap itself, so as to be absolutely certain to meddle, in one way or another, in areas that come under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.

One of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the conservation area will be established. Bill C-48 fails to respect the integrity of the territory of Quebec and the other provinces.

This is another example of interference and duplication. As my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm was saying, the situation is especially complex in Canada, and even more so when bodies of water are involved.

I will tell you a story. A fisherman wants to go fishing on the St. Lawrence River. So far, so good. This fisherman has to ask the provincial government for a fishing licence. He will go fishing in a rowboat he bought in Quebec, on which of course he paid federal and provincial taxes. In order to launch his rowboat, he needs a federal registration.

Before launching his rowboat, he gets ready on the shore of the river. He is on a territory under Quebec jurisdiction since the shores come under provincial jurisdiction. However, the moment he launches his rowboat, he changes jurisdiction since his rowboat is now on water, which comes under federal jurisdiction.

However, for clarity, I must say that the bottom of the river is still under provincial jurisdiction. The fish that swims in the water and that the fisherman will try to catch is under federal jurisdiction. But its friend, the crab, which is crawling on the bottom of the river, is under shared jurisdiction, even though the bottom of the river is still under provincial jurisdiction.

The fish swimming in the water comes under federal jurisdiction. But, once it is caught and lying at the bottom of the rowboat, it comes under provincial jurisdiction. Due attention will then have to be paid to regulations, because there are federal quotas for that kind of fish.

Moreover, if this is commercial fishing, there are federal and provincial laws and regulations with regard to food, the environment, public health, equipment and so on.

As if things were not complicated enough, Bill C-48 creates overlap within the federal administration itself. This makes no sense.

Three federal departments will drag their standards into an area of provincial jurisdiction, creating overlap in an already thoroughly complicated situation. It borders on the absurd.

Through Heritage Canada, the federal government intends to create marine conservation areas. Through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the federal government has already created marine protection zones. Through Environment Canada, the federal government wants to create marine wildlife preserves. How can anyone make sense of this?

For its part—there is more—Fisheries and Oceans is proposing to set up marine protected areas. Following DFO's consultation meetings on marine protection zones in Quebec in June 1998, federal officials wrote the following in their minutes of these meetings:

There is still a great deal of confusion among stakeholders regarding the various federal programs on protected marine areas (marine protection zones, national marine conservation areas, wildlife marine preserves, etc.). The departments concerned should harmonize their actions and co-operate to create protected marine areas.

This is not the Bloc Quebecois talking; these were the comments of federal officials.

Now, Environment Canada is proposing to establish marine conservation zones, that could also be called natural marine reserves, expanding the notion of the national wildlife sanctuary beyond the territorial sea to the 200-mile limit.

Such overlap and duplication is ridiculous. Who will know what belongs to whom? But we know what this government wants. It wants to get its hands on the St. Lawrence River. This is how it hopes to invade our jurisdiction. This is how it thinks it will bend us to its will, but we are not having any of it.

Yet an agreement could have been reached, as it was in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. This initiative could have served as a model. In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada agreed to pass mirror legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. This resulted in the creation of Canada's first marine conservation area.

This first partnership initiative should have served as a model to the federal government for the creation of other marine conservation areas. Rather than demonstrating open-mindedness and co-operation, the federal government is still taking an arrogant, aggressive, invasive approach that creates overlap and will only feed our desire to leave as soon as possible.

Phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan could have served as another model. But the Government of Canada is not happy when everything is running smoothly. They prefer to stir up trouble and sow discord. They do not understand that Quebeckers have had it with their arrogant policies that cost a fortune, and the people will let them know unequivocally in a very short time.

The bill is an intrusion into the jurisdictions of Quebec and those of the other provinces, when they are concerned. Quebec cannot and will not work in this kind of system. We were very open with the federal government in dealing with the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. It is unfortunate that the government has not learned its lesson.

[Tobacco Act, November 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-42 and to raise certain arguments.

Many things have been said. My colleagues from the other parties have pointed out the great harm that smoking has done in Canada and in every province. As legislators, the members of this House must be able to promote and adopt laws against the use of tobacco, particularly among the young.

The data given us by anti-smoking organizations are frightening. These statistics have made us aware of this scourge. We are often tempted to think there are fewer smokers. Perhaps there is a reduction in the number of smokers in certain categories of people, for example among adults, but young people are starting to smoke earlier and earlier.

As has already been pointed out, Bill C-42 delays the implementation of certain sections of the Tobacco Act. Members will recall Bill C-71 passed by this House. Bill C-42 has mainly to do with tobacco sponsorships.

The amendments provide for a two-year moratorium on the restrictions governing sponsorships by tobacco companies until October 2000. From the third to the fifth year, the restrictions will apply as initially provided in Bill C-71, that is to say, the name of the company may appear on only 10% of advertising space. It is very important that the public be told that the ban on sponsorships will be total as of October 1, 2003.

The primary purpose of Bill C-42 is to amend the existing Tobacco Act so as to extend the transition deadline before the enforcement of the restrictions already imposed.

The first phase of the bill, which runs for two years after the amendment comes into effect, extends the status quo for promotion both on and off the sites of events and activities that were sponsored by tobacco companies before April 25, 1997.

The second phase, lasting three years after the two years of transition, will again extend the status quo for promotions throughout the site of sponsored events and activities, by permitting the display of product-related brand elements in promotional material.

It will also permit sponsorship promotions on the site of an event as it unfolds or according to other regulatory provisions; and apply the existing 90/10 restriction in the Tobacco Act to sponsorship promotions off site. These promotions will also be permitted in mailings sent directly to adults, in publications whose readership is essentially adult and in bars and taverns where minors are denied access by law.

The third aspect of the amendment is the considerable toughening up of the Tobacco Act in relation to the bill passed in April. Where some might have interpreted the 10% rule as a breach, there is no longer any doubt. We are talking zero tolerance.

This total prohibition will take effect immediately following the five year transition period. At that point, the Tobacco Act will prohibit all promotional sponsorship by tobacco companies. It will also prohibit the appearance of brand elements on permanent facilities or in them.

With such measures, Canada is following the worldwide trend to set more and more restrictions on the sponsorship and promotional activities of tobacco companies. The European Union intends to prohibit all industry sponsorship by 2006. A number of signatory countries have already prohibited all tobacco advertising and sponsorship within their borders. New Zealand, Australia and the United States have—or are heading toward—a total ban. The total ban after October 1, 2003 is therefore ahead of a number of countries, but the extended deadline makes it possible to take a sensible approach which will avoid numerous problems at the international level, for Formula I racing in particular, as well as on the economic level.

That said, the Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of the key principles relating to health, and the campaign against smoking, particularly among young people, is close to our hearts.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of any measure to reduce smoking. We are in favour of measures to raise awareness and to educate people, as well as any measure to help eliminate this scourge that is costing so many lives and creating so many health problems.

It must not be forgotten, however, that health still comes under provincial jurisdiction. It is primarily at this level that health protection measures should be developed and administered.

This brings me to Quebec's existing anti-smoking legislation, which was sponsored by the present health minister. It was passed on June 17, 1998. The proposed legislation was received favourably by the media, health organizations, organizers of sports and cultural events, and the general public.

Quebec's Minister of Health avoided the errors made by the federal government by introducing much more realistic standards to combat smoking. His legislation is tougher but more flexible.

With respect to the ban on sponsorships, the provincial legislation offers event organizers a choice. The first option is to drop all tobacco-related sponsorships by October 1, 2000 and benefit from a financial assistance program for the period up to October 1, 2003, which is the government's solution. The second option is to accept a five-year transition period with restrictions after October 1, 2000 and no financial assistance, as provided for in the federal bill now before us.

Under the bill, sponsorship contracts already concluded with tobacco companies may stand or be renewed until October 1, 2000. Quebec's legislation provides, however, that the value of such contracts may not exceed their maximum value as at June 11, 1998.

Organizers will have until October 1, 2000 to decide which form of transition they prefer. For those who choose the second transition option, the amendment states that sponsorship promotion may continue on the site where an activity is held and during this activity for three more years after October 1, 2000.

Being able to choose between two options, each having its advantages and drawbacks, is another example of a balance between flexibility and rigidity. Naturally, most of the Quebec organizations and even the Canadian anti-smoking associations told us in committee and on other occasions that they would prefer that Bill C-42 or the existing federal anti-smoking legislation be harmonized with the legislation passed by Quebec.

As I mentioned earlier, the application is much stricter, but the adjustment for these sports and cultural events organizations which enjoyed tobacco sponsorships is more flexible because after two years they are prevented from advertising. However, until they can find other sponsors, they can draw on the compensatory fund for support.

The federal government should also have established a compensatory fund. In Quebec, the money in this fund comes from taxes on cigarettes.

Tobacco causes health care problems, it causes loss of life and it is a drain on the economy and on tax revenues, forcing taxpayers to pay for health care.

The Quebec legislation provides for a tax on tobacco. It levies a charge on tobacco companies and users, which goes into the compensatory fund, which, at the moment, helps the organizers of sports and cultural events. These people are very appreciative.

At home, we have the du Maurier international tennis championships, which are known worldwide. Sponsorship is by a tobacco company, and that is not necessarily a good image for the championships. In two years' time, they will have to find another sponsor.

Certain companies agreed to sponsor these sports and cultural events, which generated considerable revenue—$30 million for Quebec—as well as very substantial indirect revenues for the communities hosting them. This measure will make it possible to keep these events in the communities and to generate important revenues for the public.

The Bloc Quebecois asked the federal government to pass this measure and it would not have been necessary to give people another five years to make the transition. Although 10% is not very much, it is still advertising and it is still excessive.

I would like to remind members that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-42 because, in our opinion, it is more balanced than the previous legislation, Bill C-71. As I mentioned, we find it deplorable that the government has taken over a year to understand what we have been saying since the beginning of the debate on Bill C-71.

I need not recall how this bill was rushed through committee stage. We were expected to approve the bill without even hearing from important witnesses who wished to voice their objections to Bill C-71. There were many complications. In any event, that bill was replaced by Bill C-42. One year later, we are therefore no further ahead. All these measures have been delayed by one year, when this could have been wrapped up last year.

As I mentioned earlier, the fight against smoking is one that all of society must wage. It is not easy to change a habit that goes back several generations. But, through these bills, authorities will now have better tools with which to tackle the serious public health problem that smoking represents.