Pauline Picard

[Hepatitis C, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

This government obviously has a problem. It cannot get its priorities straight and is short on compassion.

How can the Prime Minister justify his government's decision to hand out millennium scholarships that nobody wants, and to buy used submarines, just to keep the military happy, but not to compensate all hepatitis C victims? What sort of priorities are these, Prime Minister?

[Hepatitis C, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since the provinces have paid until now to look after hepatitis C victims, and since they will continue to do so in future, should the federal government not pull its weight and provide appropriate compensation for all those who contracted hepatitis C?

[Hepatitis C, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health continues to be insensitive to hepatitis C victims excluded from the program, although the latest figures show that the federal government is headed towards a substantial surplus for 1997-98.

Is it not disgraceful that the Minister of Health refuses to reconsider assistance to all hepatitis C victims, when his government, with its deep health cuts in recent years, is generating surpluses it had not even expected?

[Fight Against Cancer, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, imagine a world where cancer would just be a vague and sad memory. Impossible, you say. Yet, thousands of men and women in Canada and in Quebec share this dream.

Even though cancer is not yet a thing of the past, we have to realize that great progress has been made these last few decades. More and more, we understand and screen early symptoms of cancer more quickly and treat them before it is too late.

To put it in concrete terms, let me point out that the survival rate of children with leukaemia has jumped from 50% to 83% in less than 30 years. For testicular cancer, the survival rate has increased from 73% to 95%. The recent discovery of the gene responsible for breast cancer has revived the research for treatment and prevention of this terrible disease.

The fight must go on. This being cancer awareness month, I urge all members of this House and Canadians to find the way to overcome cancer.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again to the bill before us today, Bill C-28.

There are a number of things wrong with this bill. There are the measures that supposedly demonstrate the government's concern with respect to social programs and the deterioration of health care, which it brought about itself by cutting provincial transfer payments in the health, social services and education sectors over the last three years.

This bill is an attempt to make us think the government has invested in social programs, especially health. The reality is that the government has put no new money into transfers, particularly not for health. The $48 billion in unilateral cuts announced have now dropped to $42 billion. We are told that the government is investing the $6 billion difference, but in reality no new money is being invested; the government is cutting $6 billion less.

We are told that health is a priority. We feel it is arrogant of the government to try to persuade the public that it is investing heavily in social programs.

As things stand now, the provinces have been cut so many times by the federal government, particularly in the health sector, that they are running out of steam and are having a great deal of trouble maintaining the existing level of health care and keeping the whole system from falling apart. And the federal government remains indifferent to what the provinces are going through.

Worse yet, on top of cutting transfers to the provinces, the government is set to interfere in health, which is a provincial jurisdiction. We are told that, instead of rushing into restructuring, the government is investing; it is investing, however, by cutting less than originally forecast and dropping a little money into new programs that really fall under provincial jurisdiction.

The government wants to enhance its visibility by giving everyone the impression that it is good to the people; it comes up with programs like medicare and home care, when such programs already exist in several provinces, including Quebec.

Once again, after vowing to avoid duplication and overlap, the federal government projects an image of itself as saviour while it interferes in jurisdictions that are none of its business.

Management of health, social programs, education and social assistance comes under provincial jurisdiction. Normally, the government should transfer their share back to the provinces instead of interfering in an area that is not under its jurisdiction.

The government does not seem to realize that no one has waited for it to take action. What the provinces need today is not more talks but the financial means to implement solutions designed to meet their needs.

In this respect, I would like to quote from the Quebec finance minister's last budget speech, which sums up well the mess the federal government has left the provinces, and Quebec in particular:

Since we took power in 1994, the federal government has unilaterally deprived us of $7 billion for health care, $3 billion for education, and $1 billion for asocial assistance. This adds up to $11 billion. The figure does not include the $2 billion that Ottawa has refused to pay for the harmonization of the QST and the GST, although the three Atlantic Provinces were granted $1 billion.

Were it not for these depredations, we would already have achieved a zero deficit and avoided many of the painful, sweeping spending cutbacks that some observers are trying to ascribe to our wishes alone. The health and education departments are not located in Ottawa, but it is there and without our input that the cutbacks have in the main been decided. That is how absurd the system has become... The latest budget confirms the federal government's complete insensitivity to a number of our needs, notably in the health sector. Ottawa prefers to distribute cheques to the population, emblazoned with the maple leaf. Lacking vision, Ottawa is investing in visibility.

That is what we have to live with in Quebec and how we view the situation.

I would also like to share another concern regarding Bill C-28. There is an apparent conflict of interest. Through Bill C-28, the Minister of Finance is trying to have legislation passed that is likely to give his shipping company, Canada Steamship Lines Inc., of which he is the sole owner, certain tax advantages.

Clause 241 of Bill C-28 would amend section 250 of the Income Tax Act. In this 464-page omnibus bill, clause 241 is only two paragraphs long and deals exclusively with international shipping; moreover, the Minister of Finance himself is the bill's sponsor.

How can the Minister of Finance sponsor a bill which includes tax provisions that could benefit his own company, while continuing to suggest that these measures will not apply to him and to his shipping holding company? There is indeed an apparent conflict of interest and, given the importance of the minister's position and the integrity he must show while managing the country's finances, there should not be any suspicions whatsoever about him. However, with Bill C-28, his personal name as a shipowner and that of his holding are directly linked to the legislation.

Even though the minister is defending himself by saying that his company has been held in a blind trust since he assumed his current position, he will not be a minister all his life and he will eventually benefit from that tax amendment.

The very first day that we questioned the Minister of Finance about this issue, he advised us to talk to Len Farber, director general of tax legislation at the Department of Finance. We did meet Mr. Farber, but he could neither confirm nor deny whether the minister might benefit from these changes, thus raising serious doubts in our minds.

Our next step was to table five motions before the Standing Committee on Finance, asking that various witnesses appear to shed light on the issue. The only witness authorized to appear before the committee was Mr. Wilson, the government's ethics counsellor, who is paid by the government and who is accountable only to the government. Nevertheless, Mr. Wilson's appearance before the committee strengthened our position, since he himself put the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in an embarrassing position.

After candidly admitting that he was not an expert on international taxation and that he could not adequately answer a number of our questions, Mr. Wilson also recognized that, indeed, there could be an apparent conflict of interest in this case, adding that had he been informed at the very beginning of the details relating to clause 241 and its impact, things would have been done differently.

He recognized, as we do, that there were serious problems with the way the finance minister was doing things and that the code of ethics the government had adopted in 1994 was not observed. Indeed, the code of ethics clearly states that public office holders must, as soon as they take up their duties, take necessary steps to avoid real, potential or apparent conflict of interest. Obviously, the code of ethics was not adhered to and the finance minister is at fault.

After the Liberal majority on the finance committee refused to agree to our request, the four opposition parties called a press conference to demand that the Prime Minister order a special committee to be struck to shed light on clause 241 of Bill C-28. As yet our request has remained unanswered.

The government's ethic counsellor, who answers to the Prime Minister, claims it is irrelevant to know whether or not CSL, owned by the finance minister, may benefit from provisions in Bill C-28. If so, why did Mr. Wilson get in touch with CSL management, the very first day this became an issue, and ask if it was making use or was planning to make use of these provisions?

Moreover, Mr. Wilson admitted he was no financial planning expert. And yet he seems to accept without questioning or seeking an outside second opinion CSL's statement that it does not intend to make use of Bill C-28's provisions.

For weeks now the government has been denying the finance minister is at the very least in an apparent conflict of interest because he is not the one who was in charge of the shipping provisions.

However, the ethics counsellor contradicted the government when he admitted that the finance minister's sponsoring of Bill C-28 gave the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Mr. Wilson stated in this regard that procedural problems within the finance department had put the finance minister in an awkward situation, and that things would have been done differently had he been contacted, as he should have been, before Bill C-28 was introduced.

Since the ethics counsellor admits the finance minister is in an apparent conflict of interest, how should the June 1994 federal government code of ethics apply in this particular case?

Mr. Wilson also suggests that the finance minister was not aware of the contents of Bill C-28 before the Bloc Quebecois raised these issues in the House a few weeks ago. On the one hand, can the minister responsible for the Income Tax Act so easily avoid his responsibilities toward a bill that he is sponsoring and, on the other hand, what must the people be thinking about a finance minister who does not know the contents of his own bills? Is ministerial accountability not a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system?

In conclusion, there are many issues and these issues are serious enough that we should take the time to address them. So long as the government continues to ignore the requests of all opposition parties regarding Bill C-28, we will continue to put pressure in all possible and imaginable ways until finally, in the interest of transparency, someone answers our questions.

[Health, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with the millennium scholarship fund it established to promote its own visibility, the federal government once again made a blunder by invading an area of provincial jurisdiction. Now, the Minister of Health is about to do the same with home care services.

Considering what is happening in the education sector, does the minister not believe that he should immediately change his position before it is too late and stay away from home care, which is a provincial—not federal—jurisdiction?

[Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide, March 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion M-123, moved by our colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, whom I congratulate, by the way, on his courage.

The motion reads as follows:

That a special committee be appointed, pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(b), to review the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and that the Committee be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(5).

Beyond the differences of opinion that are normal and even desirable in a democracy such as ours, we have all, you, I and all members of the House, one thing in common: we were elected by our constituents to study, debate and make laws on all sorts of issues. We are lawmakers, and our actions therefore have a direct impact on the lives of all our fellow citizens.

But rarely, almost never, are we called upon to deal with issues as important and sensitive as the one now before us. Motion M-123 is not about amending marketing standards, about increasing or reducing the budget, or about implementing international accords, although all these issues have their importance. This motion touches on the very essence of who we are and what we believe, on the very essence of life and, since life would not be life without it, death.

Whatever the angle from which we approach the issue, we must keep in mind that our actions must be carefully weighed and considered, because there are some issues where a bad decision is not an option. The only other possibility excluded from the outset is indifference, or acting as though the problem did not exist.

But despite the apparent scope of this debate, we can take comfort in knowing that we are not starting from zero. Many discussions have taken place, many rulings have been handed down, and recommendations made at various levels, here in particular. After spending several months hearing witnesses and gathering briefs from everywhere in Canada, a special Senate committee on euthanasia and assisted suicide tabled a full report on this issue in June of 1995. Even though the committee did not reach a consensus on what ought to be done or not done, which was not part of its mandate, the outcome of its study will be very useful to us, as elected parliamentarians, during the forthcoming debates and discussions.

These last few years, besides this Senate committee, several cases were given wide coverage by the media. The most famous one is probably the story of Sue Rodriguez, a woman with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, challenged the ban on assisted suicide in the Criminal Code.

In December 1992, the Supreme Court of British-Columbia turned down her request, stating that section 241 of the Criminal Code did not go against the charter. On March 8, 1993, the Court of Appeal of the same province rejected the appeal by Ms. Rodriguez. Lastly, on September 30, 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada put an end to her crusade, with a close five to four decision that did not quash the debate, far from it.

On this issue, the comments made by dissenting justice Peter Cory reflect the state of mind of several of his colleagues. He stated and I quote “The life of an individual must include dying. Dying is the final act in the drama of life. The right to die with dignity should be as well protected as is any other aspect of the right to life. State prohibitions that would force a dreadful, painful death on a rational but incapacitated terminally ill patient are an affront to human dignity”.

Despite some dissension within the Supreme Court, there was unanimity on one issue, namely that the decision belongs to us, as elected representatives. Whether it be the British Columbia Supreme Court, the British Columbia Court of Appeal or even the Senate committee, all those who studied this issue have said that it is our responsibility.

On February 12, 1994, Sue Rodriguez, assisted by a physician, took her own life. I will let my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas speak of this case in further detail if he wishes to do so.

In Quebec, in 1992, the case of Nancy B. gave a lot of people food for thought. The 25-year-old woman was suffering from an incurable disease called Guillain-Barré syndrome. At a certain stage of the disease, she had to be hooked to a respirator. She asked for the right to stop supportive treatment. The Quebec Superior Court recognized that right, and Nancy B. left this world courageously, in silence, in sickness, but at the time of her choosing.

Two other cases are worth mentioning here. First, there is the case of Austin Bastable, a 52-year-old Ontarian suffering from chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. During the 35th Parliament, he wrote several times to members to ask, just as Sue Rodriguez had asked the courts, for the right to die at the time of his choosing, with the assistance of a physician.

Like Sue Rodriguez, he realized that it is not easy to get an answer from a government that may be ill prepared to deal with such a request. Austin Bastable had to go to the United States, away from his family and friends, to die assisted by a physician whom he had probably never seen before. That is not dying with dignity.

Finally, the case of Robert Latimer raises other questions. In this case, he was not the one who was sick. He and his wife decided to take the life of their daughter Tracy, who was suffering from cerebral palsy and from serious physical malformations causing incredible pain. She had no hope of getting any better.

Although we will have to deal with this issue, Mr. Latimer's case is outside the scope of this debate since it is murder for compassionate reasons, which means that someone decided to take someone else's life.

It must be understood that we are talking here about the right of a competent adult who is terminally ill or who is suffering from an incurable disease to make that decision for himself or herself. The decision is not meant to be made for that adult by another person, a doctor, a relative or a parent.

To conclude, these four examples of individuals who have fought to further the debate each in their own way clearly show how important it is that the matter be clarified once and for all.

So far, the courts have had to decide the many difficult issues brought before them. Without minimizing the importance of their work, it seems clear to me that we will not always be able to leave this in their hands. Sooner or later Parliament will have to make a decision.

Both the current Minister of Health—and former justice minister— and the Prime Minister promised a free vote in the House on this issue. Federal Liberal Party members have already passed a resolution along those lines at one of their conventions. The Bloc Quebecois too repeatedly asked that the House address this issue. More than ever, it is important that this serious and current issue be debated and debated now.

Motion M-123 is a perfect opportunity to do just that, and I hope it will be supported by a majority of parliamentarians. Because there is no life without death, because death is part of life, as its hidden face, we have a duty to develop frameworks which are fair and which respect human dignity.

Could we really imagine choosing for ourselves and all our loved ones anything but a gentle and humane death with dignity? Anything but the freedom of choice?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

That is false.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate getting back the time I was deprived of because some members do not respect my right to speak in this House.

We are still debating Bill C-28 and, as I was saying, the Prime Minister gave his caucus an order to silence the opposition, and that order was complied with.

Since February 5, when the Bloc Quebecois showed what is really behind Bill C-28, the opposition has been facing systematic obstruction co-ordinated by the Prime Minister's office. If the Liberal government has nothing to hide, why is it stubbornly refusing to respond to the opposition on this issue?

The ethics counsellor himself said that Bill C-28 had not been drafted according to the rules and that, if they had to do it again, some measures would have to be taken to avoid this conflict of interest situation.

He recognized, as we do, that there were serious problems with the way the finance minister was doing things and that the code of ethics the government had adopted in 1994 was not observed.

On the basis of this statement and in an attempt to get to the bottom of the matter, the four opposition parties took the unprecedented step of joining together both in the House and in a press conference to demand that light be shed on this nebulous matter.

Once again, the Prime Minister did not accede to the opposition's request, thereby confirming what we suspected all along: it is in the interest of some individuals that the truth never be known.

To resolve this impasse caused entirely by the government, the Bloc Quebecois is proposing a sensible alternative, which would be in keeping with expressed wish of the various opposition parties.

The Minister of Finance, who is in an apparent conflict of interest situation, should delete from Bill C-28 clauses 241 and 242, which have led to so many questions that have remained unanswered for more than a month now. The minister could include these two clauses in a different schedule of the bill or in a different bill altogether, as suggested by the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor.

In this respect, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot proposed an amendment that I fully support, as it responds to the many representations made by the opposition, including a request for a special subcommittee to provide answers to some of the questions the government has refused to answer so far.

The ethics counsellor, who works for the Prime Minister, contends that it is not important to know whether or not CSL, the company owned by the Minister of Finance, would benefit from the provisions contained in Bill C-28. In that case, why did Mr. Wilson contact CSL the very day this matter was brought up to inquire as to whether the company was taking advantage of these provisions or contemplating to do so?

In addition, Mr. Wilson has admitted that he was not an expert in tax planning. However, he seems to accept at face value, without outside opinions, the statement from CSL to the effect that the company had no intention of using the provisions contained in Bill C-28.

For several weeks, the government has been denying that the Minister of Finance is at the very least in an apparent conflict of interest situation, arguing that the minister is not the one who introduced the provisions on shipping. Yet, the ethics counsellor contradicted the government by admitting that the Minister of Finance had sponsored Bill C-28 and that that creates an appearance of conflict of interest.

Mr. Wilson says, in this regard, that procedural problems in the Department of Finance put the Minister of Finance in an awkward situation and that things would have been done differently had he been advised, as he should have, before C-28 was introduced.

Since the ethics counsellor admits that the Minister of Finance is in a position of appearing to be in a conflict of interest, how should the federal government's June 1994 code of ethics apply in this case?

Mr. Wilson also suggests that the Minister of Finance was not aware of the content of Bill C-28 before the Bloc raised these issues in the House a number of weeks ago. Could the minister responsible for the Income Tax Act so easily have shirked his responsibilities in connection with a bill he was sponsoring and how does the public view a Minister of Finance who did not know what was in his own legislation?

Is ministerial accountability not a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system? The least I can say is that the government's stubborn refusal to open up the entire matter does little to lighten the suspicions hanging over the minister, on the contrary.

I would like to turn my attention to another point in Bill C-28, which concerns transfers to the provinces.

What this bill confirms is the unfortunate plan for making cuts, which the Minister of Finance dreamt up to reduce his deficit on the backs of others. What they are saying is that $48 billion in savage cuts to transfers for education, health and social assistance will be reduced to $42 billion. What a relief. This is no increase in transfers to the provinces. It is less of a cut.

In this regard, changing the cash floor for transfer payments to $12.5 billion is nothing more than a vulgar election promise, legitimized by the National Forum on Health, in order to fool the people into thinking they are giving more, when in fact the provinces and Quebec have to work with $42 billion less, while the federal government rubs its hands together at the prospect of encroaching on provincial jurisdictions with the money it saved.

Who is going to pay the social cost of the budget approach of this Liberal government? The sick, the unemployed and the most disadvantaged of our society. They are the real artisans of the first balanced budget. The Liberals have nothing at all to be proud of.

When one sees this Liberal government unable to admit it made a poor choice in its last budget, when one sees the federal Liberals encouraging the government to poke its nose into education, is it any surprise that the Prime Minister is trying to conceal the truth in the case of the Minister of Finance and the apparent conflict of interest?

On the eve of a provincial election, even the Quebec Liberals are asking their federal big brothers to be discreet and to respect the traditional demands of Quebec, but it is a bit too late for the Liberals.

With such eloquent examples as Bill C-28, which once again dumps the deficit onto the provincial governments, while offering the Minister of Finance some attractive tax opportunities, Quebeckers understand better and better whom the federal government is working for.

They understand that government decisions will never bear any resemblance to their wishes until those decisions are all made where their interests are really taken into account: in the Quebec National Assembly.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I realize this speech is hurting the Liberals, but I would ask for a modicum of respect during this debate.

The Prime Minister basically gave a gag order to his caucus and it was complied with. Since February 5, when the Bloc Quebecois showed what—