House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Bloc MP for Drummond (Québec)

Won her last election, in 2006, with 50% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Health Care October 26th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, out of solidarity with his Cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health will have to support Jean Charest and the Liberal Party at the next election in Quebec.

What does the Minister of Health have to say to Quebeckers in response to Jean Charest, who said “Forget Lucien Bouchard, forget Jean Rochon. The one really responsible for health cuts is the Prime Minister of Canada”?

Health October 22nd, 1998

Yet, Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, the Minister of Health said he was prepared to give back to the provinces the money for the health sector.

Now that the government is showing substantial budgetary surpluses, will the minister demand that the provinces be fully reimbursed for the cuts in health transfers, or will he knuckle under to the Minister of Finance as his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, does so well?

Health October 22nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the provinces will agree to sign a three-year plan if the federal government cancels the $6 billion cut in transfer payments for health and social programs.

Will the Minister of Health undertake to give back the money taken away from the provinces for health?

Breast Cancer October 6th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Every day, some 50 women learn they have breast cancer, for a total of about 17,000 women annually. Over 5,400 of them will not survive the disease. That means today alone 15 will die.

A number of groups and associations are vigorously looking for a way to treat this disease, whose causes remain essentially unknown. While progress has been made, through prevention and screening, current treatment is often ineffective. Biopsies are still extremely painful, and other forms of treatment are still at the development stage.

The fight is far from over, and I call on all my colleagues, men and women, to contribute generously to the pink ribbon campaign.

Supply October 5th, 1998

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat amazed to hear the Liberal member answering my colleague by saying we are all in the same boat and need to all row in the same direction.

He does not know his history and he does not respect the constitution. In the constitution, we in Quebec had rights as a people. When the government interferes in an area that comes under provincial jurisdiction, as it does in Quebec, we are not in the same boat.

I would also like to tell the hon. member that, in this the finest country in the world, as it pleases the Prime Minister to call it, there are one and one-half million poor children at the present time. If children are poor, this is because parents and women are poor. I would like him to think about that.

Supply October 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I think it is very difficult to determine what portion of the transfer payment should be earmarked for each province.

The federal government cut the cash portion of the Canada social transfer to Quebec. It is extremely difficult to calculate which portion goes to education, social assistance or health care. In my speech today, I wanted to urge the federal government to restore the $2 billion it savagely cut from the Canada social transfer to Quebec. That is what I wanted to ask the federal government.

Supply October 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague that every hospital has a board of directors. Regional Health and Social Service Boards have one too. Citizens can tell those boards and their administrators what their needs are. Citizens are very well represented.

The federal government is using every excuse in the book not to pay the provinces what is owed them. It is ironic that it managed to find millions of dollars to improve its visibility, fund its flag war, buy second-hand submarines and ram its millennium scholarship fund down our throats, while lacking political will. It has the arrogance to tell the provinces what to do and force them to come begging on bended knee. In the long run it is Canadians who are paying the price.

Supply October 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion introduced by the hon. member for Témiscamingue.

My comments will deal primarily with the first part of the motion, which reads:

That this House recognize the very harmful effect of federal cuts to the Canada Social Transfer (CST), particularly on health services in Canada—

Everyone knows the strategy applied by the Liberals to eliminate the deficit. Year after year, the Minister of Finance deliberately underestimated his revenues and overestimated the costs of servicing the debt. This allowed him to slash social programs, while underestimating the deficit by several billions of dollars.

After that underhanded ploy, the federal government started a war of flags with the provinces, to promote its visibility while ignoring things such as the loss of efficiency, overlap, waste, not to mention its own constitution and the primary interests of the public.

Social transfers are at their lowest in 20 years. By the year 2003, cuts to cash transfers will total $42 billion. These cuts have a major impact on our current health care system, in terms of access to quality care.

Everyone now agrees that the massive cuts made by Ottawa to the health care system are the primary cause of the very difficult times that our system has been going through in recent years.

We are not the only ones saying that. I will quote some comments made by a few groups, including members of the former National Forum on Health, who are considered to be reasonable people by politicians.

Let me begin with the Canadian Medical Association. It says that the “cuts to federal transfers to the provinces for health and social programs have been the main obstacle to access to quality care for Canadians, and the reason for the most serious crisis of confidence regarding our health care system since the implementation of medicare, in the sixties”.

That comment by the Canadian Medical Association can be found in a release published in La Presse , on September 22, 1998. The association is asking that the amounts cut by the federal be restored and indexed to take into account the cost increase for new technologies and the fact that the population is aging.

The Canadian Healthcare Association issued a press release on August 5, 1998 that included the following statement:

[The federal government must] provide an immediate injection of cash and an appropriate growth mechanism for the Canada Health and Social Transfer to help meet the health needs of a growing and ageing population [—]

Even the members of the former National Health Forum felt the need to clarify their recommendations, and I quote:

We recommended that $12.5 billion be the floor, not the ceiling. [—] The increase in transfer payments to the provinces should strengthen the health care system and this money should be invested where it has the greatest chance of producing positive results.

In an article in the May 7, 1997 Journal de Québec , Jean Charest blamed the Prime Minister for the cuts that have affected the health care sector, and exonerated the Premier of Quebec. This is what he said:

Mr. Bouchard, just like Messrs Harris, Filmon and Klein, has been forced to contend with Ottawa's unilateral cuts.

He pointed out that, during the last three years, the Liberals cut health and education transfers to the provinces and territories by 35%. He said this represented at least $6 billion.

So Mr. Charest was right: all the provinces are feeling the effects of the federal government's cuts. Here are some of the headlines from the rest of Canada.

On April 13, 1998, the CBC reported the following: “Manitobans are travelling to Dakota to seek treatment in mobile hospitals working out of tractor trailers along the American border. To avoid the four-month wait in the public health care system, Manitobans are paying $1,300 US ($2,000 CAN) out of their own pockets for two MRIs, an amount that will not be reimbursed.”

On June 6, 1998, La Presse reported: “Military medical officers are lending a hand in Newfoundland's overburdened emergency departments. Thirty medical teams, made up of one physician and one assistant, will be providing services in rural and urban areas of the province starting in July. An agreement has apparently been signed between the province and the federal Department of Defence in order to compensate for the physician shortage. Doctors are complaining they are insufficiently paid”.

To quote a French CBC report from April 6, 1998: “The government of Prince Edward Island will be calling on the private sector for construction of a new hospital. According to the Minister of Health, the project will not be possible unless there is partial private-sector funding. She refused, however, to disclose the amounts required”.

Another French CBC report, from February 25, 1998: “Anaesthetist shortage in New Brunswick. The northeastern New Brunswick hospital corporation is seeking a second anaesthetist for the Acadian peninsula. Hiring this specialist will enable the Tracadie-Sheila hospital to provide day surgery, which the committee working to save the hospital has been demanding for two years”.

According to another French CBC report on February 27, 1998: “Edmonton hospitals have cancelled all non-emergency surgery. Emergency rooms and intensive care units are at full capacity in Edmonton, in large part because of the high number of cases of flu. Some patients from the northern part of the province have had to be taken to Calgary or to Saskatchewan”.

The present government is telling us the provinces do not know how to administer their health care. I want to tell it that the problem is not bad management by the provinces, but the huge cuts in the Canada social transfer. All provinces have had to review their health systems. Their reform was necessary.

What is more, they had to do so under difficult conditions, because the government cut the funds that would otherwise have supported these health care reforms.

This is going on all over Canada, and not only in Quebec as some would like to think. The health care system has been hit with massive cuts by this government. Attributing all these problems to bad decisions and poor management by the provinces is an act of bad faith.

In Quebec, the health care reform was needed because the preceding Liberal government had refused to do it for nine years. The reform should have taken place before the PQ government came to power, but the issue was a political hot potato. Mr. Bouchard had to implement measures to stabilize the system and he did so under unacceptable conditions, as I mentioned a few minutes ago.

I would like to go on and really describe the adverse effects on the provinces, and Quebec especially, of the cuts to the health system, but unfortunately I am short of time. I would like to say to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health that they should make amends and return to the provinces the money they so massively cut.

Tobacco Act September 30th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak on Bill C-42. My approach will be somewhat different from those of my colleagues who have already spoken. I would particularly like to address it from a more technical point of view, perhaps a little more difficult one as a result. I would, however, like my view of the bill to still be clear enough to be interesting.

Bill C-42 defers certain provisions of the Tobacco Act, the current act concerning tobacco company sponsorships. The amendments bring in a two-year moratorium on the prohibition of tobacco sponsorship promotions, i.e. until October 2000. Between the third and the fifth year, the restrictions will apply as initially set out in the current act, which is that 10% of sign advertising will be allowed, until the total ban kicks in on October 1, 2003. At that time, in other words, all tobacco company sponsorship signs will be totally banned.

This initiative is in response to a request made by the Bloc Quebecois and by all organizers of sports or cultural events, to give time to these organizers to find other sources of funding. It is, however, deplorable that the government is backtracking and refusing to contribute to the compensation fund that has been set up in Quebec.

In order to understand what Bill C-42 is all about, it is important to keep its origins in mind as well as the grounds for the government's decision to re-examine the conditions the current act had set for sponsorships.

We will recall that, in September 1995, a decision by the supreme court invalidated the provisions of the Tobacco Products Control Act pertaining to advertising, thus creating a legal void on the issue and enabling the tobacco industry to resume its advertising.

It is true, the industry voluntarily set up a code of ethics for itself, but, once again, as with the voluntary moratorium on medically assisted human reproductive technologies, this voluntary code was, to all intents and purposes, never really enforced.

The Minister of Health at the time tabled in December 1995 the outline of the anti smoking strategy the government intended to introduce.

It contained restrictions on advertising and on tobacco sponsorships, standards for young people's access to tobacco, packaging and labelling requirements, reporting requirements for the companies and, finally, restrictions on points of sale.

In short, this master plan provided for total regulation of tobacco products at all stages, from their manufacture to their points of sale.

Only one thing was missing, provision for compensation of the groups that had been sponsored by the tobacco companies. This sponsorship would be significantly reduced, if not eliminated.

More than a year after the Supreme Court decision, which overturned a number of the provisions in the Tobacco Products Control Act, more than a year after the master plan of the former Health Minister was tabled, the government finally introduced some measures to counteract the ill effects of smoking.

The Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of the principle of protecting public health, which is why we voted in favour of the bill at second reading. Far be it from me to disagree with the harmful effects of smoking my colleagues in the Reform Party have listed. Who could be against everything possible being done to do away with smoking? Certainly not the Bloc Quebecois.

Although we voted in favour of the bill at second reading, the feeling that we have acted on principle ought not to prevent us from seeing the impact of our actions on society. Unfortunately, the tobacco bill, its good measures notwithstanding, swept under the rug the whole issue of sports and cultural events. These were, unavoidably, going to feel the impact of the bill, mainly because of the de facto ban on tobacco company sponsorship without any plan for compensation, as we know.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore voted against Bill C-71 at third reading, and I will explain why we did so.

The measures relating to sponsorships impacted in a very serious way on sports and cultural events. The Bloc Quebecois called upon the ministers of health and of heritage to offer financial compensation and to act like politicians responsible for their actions.

However, the minister at the time, David Dingwall, failed to assume his responsibilities and refused categorically.

Bill C-71 was constructed in such a way that a number of clauses simply gave the minister the power to regulate in various areas, without defining the scope of these regulations. In fact, all of the clauses in Bill C-71 referred to future regulations. This was tantamount to giving the Minister of Health a blank cheque and seriously complicated our work as elected officials.

I do not wish to accuse anyone of bad faith, but the government must not get into the habit of introducing this sort of bill, much of which cannot be debated in the House or in committee.

We cannot let the accelerated passage of this bill go unnoticed. At second reading, debate was limited to a single speaker from the Bloc Quebecois. During committee deliberations, the Bloc Quebecois had to fight for an additional half day to hear witnesses. Originally, barely a day and a half had been set aside for this stage. This was really ridiculous. We wait nearly two years for the government to decide to introduce a bill and in committee we are asked to debate it in a day and a half at breakneck speed. This is really unusual, and I hope the government will stop this practice, because it really does not respect the members' work.

Finally, although we agree completely with the protection of health, as I mentioned earlier, we have not forgotten that this is a provincial jurisdiction and that Bill C-71 allowed the federal government once again to interfere in a sector that the provinces are quite capable of managing on their own, as evidenced by the recent tobacco legislation passed in Quebec City.

Bill C-42, however, was introduced by the federal Minister of Health on June 3, one year after the promise made by the Prime Minister on the eve of the last federal election. Faced with the outcry that greeted Bill C-71 in Quebec, primarily among organizers of sports and cultural events, the Prime Minister made a promise during the election campaign to amend his anti-smoking legislation, obviously in order to win a few votes in Quebec.

Although the primary goal of this amendment was to repair the damage done by the federal government's error, Bill C-42 also refers to several draft regulations, the effect of which will be to clamp down even harder on the production methods and products of tobacco companies.

Before the Tobacco Act took effect on April 25, 1997, manufacturers and importers were required to provide certain information regarding tobacco sales, ingredients and advertising. What I wanted to focus on here are the measures and regulations that place greater restrictions on tobacco companies, and their effect on those companies.

Under the new regulations, better information would be obtained from manufacturers on tobacco sales, ingredients, research, as well as the manufacturing, distribution and promotion of tobacco products.

Regarding sales and toxic components, it also proposed to extend current disclosure requirements to include all categories of tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, pipe tobacco, cigars, smokeless tobacco, clove tobacco and the hand-rolled Indian cigarettes called bidis.

Studies are also covered. Under the proposed regulations, tobacco manufacturers would be required to disclose and list any study on the toxicity or health effects of their products, the taste and aroma of tobacco products, the improvement or development of tobacco products, as well as the ingredients they contain.

This information would promote a better understanding of how tobacco products are modified so that regulations can eventually be proposed to reduce the impact of smoking.

With respect to promotional activities, manufacturers and importers of all types of tobacco products would be required to disclose promotional activities and sponsorship promotions by brand name and province for any event, activity or facility.

The main thrust of Bill C-42 is to amend the existing Tobacco Act to extend the transition period before the restrictions already provided for in the act come into effect. This is the kind of common sense the Bloc Quebecois tried to inject into the debate when Bill C-71 was introduced over a year ago.

The first phase, spanning two years after the amendment is enacted, will extend the status quo regarding promotion both on and off the site of events and activities sponsored by a tobacco company before April 25, 1997. Tobacco sponsorship promotions will not be subject to any restriction under federal legislation.

The second phase, lasting three years after the two years of transition, will again extend the status quo for promotions at the site of sponsored events and activities, by permitting the display of product-related brand elements in promotional material throughout the site of events; 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—10% advertising at the bottom of a sign—to sponsorship promotions off site. These promotions will be permitted in mailings sent directly to adults who are identified by name, 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 in particular, as well as on the economic level.

The problem with Bill C-42 is the lack of any transition fund, any compensation. The Bloc Quebecois feels that jurisdiction over health ought to be left to the provinces. Health is a provincial jurisdiction—a Quebec jurisdiction, in our case—and we denounce the current situation.

It must be kept in mind that health is, as I have said, a provincial area of jurisdiction, although the numerous federal incursions into it tend to make some people lose sight of that fact. The provincial level is therefore the main one on which health protection initiatives need to be designed and implemented.

I would like to give you an overview of the tobacco legislation Quebec has just implemented, which will perhaps give you a more informed view of a bill we feel is a very intelligent one.

The bill of Quebec's Minister of Health Jean Rochon was introduced on May 14, 1998 and passed unanimously on June 17, 1998. The bill received a favourable reception from the media, the health organizations, the organizers of sporting and cultural events, and the general public. The Quebec Minister of Health avoided the pitfalls of the federal Liberals by adopting an approach that was far more attuned to reality, while at the same time bringing in new standards for the anti-smoking campaign. His bill is bolder as far as content is concerned, yet more flexible as far as application is concerned.

Regarding the prohibition of sponsorships, the provincial legislation gives organizers of events a choice between two types of transition: they either discontinue all tobacco sponsorship activities by October 1, 2000, and have access to a financial assistance program running until October 1, 2003, which is the Quebec government solution, or they will be subject to a five-year transition with restrictions after October 1, 2000, and forfeit the financial assistance, as provided for in the bill before us.

Under this bill, sponsorship contracts already signed with tobacco companies can be honoured and renewed up to October 1, 2000. However, the Quebec legislation imposes as ceiling on the value of such contracts the maximum contracted amount as of June 11, 1998.

Organisers have until October 1, 2000, to make a choice. 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 laxity and rigidity. To achieve this balance, Quebec finance minister Bernard Landry agreed to use part of the extra income generated by the recent tax increase imposed on tobacco products to compensate organizations that will discontinue tobacco sponsorship in the year 2000.

According to the Constitution, anti-smoking efforts, like any health initiative, should come from the provinces, not the federal government. If Quebec and the other provinces did not have to hand over more than $30 billion in taxes every year, if we could hang on to that money, we could invest more in these prevention and awareness initiatives.

But hand it over we must and, in the last 30 years or so, federal transfer payments have dropped from 28% to 14% of Quebec's budget. In Quebec's health sector alone, the federal government's contribution has dropped from 39% to 30% in the last 10 years.

For 1997-98 alone, the Government of Quebec estimates that the $590 million cut by the federal government represents 80% of the total $760 million budgeted by Quebec for the entire health and social services sector.

Far from giving the provinces more room to manoeuvre, Ottawa is unilaterally cutting transfer payments, and then spending the money itself. The entire issue of federal government health funding must be reviewed and overhauled.

In the meantime, it is important that the federal government assume its responsibilities and contribute to the compensation fund set up by Quebec, and by the other provinces if they so wished. The government is benefiting from the hundreds of millions of dollars in spinoffs from sports and cultural events.

The federal Minister of Health must support efforts to offset the negative effects of anti-smoking measures. This is an investment in the economies of Montreal, Quebec and Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois is pleased to see that Bill C-42 takes a much more balanced approach to the provisions of the Tobacco Act since the adoption of Bill C-71. It is deplorable, however, that it has taken the Liberals over one year to understand what we have been saying from the beginning of this debate: it is possible to mount an effective campaign against the dangers of smoking without unduly penalizing any one group.

The fight against smoking is one that must be waged by all of society. A habit that has been around for many generations will not be easily changed. But authorities will now have better weapons against the serious public health problem it represents.

Member For Sherbrooke September 28th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the people of Sherbrooke have spoken. They have just sent a clear response to the Prime Minister of Canada, whom they recognize as responsible for the huge cuts in health throughout Canada. They have just told the federal government they will no longer put up with his arrogant attitude toward Quebec, whether the issue concerned is the Constitution or the millennium scholarships.

The people of Sherbrooke have figured out that electing a Bloc Quebecois MP was, first and foremost, the way to ensure that their interests would be defended. They have sent a clear message to the rest of Canada: the Liberal government is not an acceptable choice for them. More than ever in Quebec, the centralist and invasive governing style of the Prime Minister is not to our liking.

The people of Sherbrooke have had the opportunity to express aloud what a large majority of Quebeckers really think.

We wish our new colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, a warm welcome among us.