Pauline Picard

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, as this is the beginning of the 36th Parliament, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Drummond for once again demonstrating their faith in me. They can count on my co-operation and be assured that I will defend the interests of this riding with a booming economy, which is also referred to as the heart of Quebec. As I did at the beginning of the 35th Parliament, I want to offer my constituents my full co-operation and promise them that I will do my utmost to promote their interests.

Since I will continue to act as health critic, my comments today will pertain mainly to the throne speech sections that touched on health issues.

But first, I must condemn this Speech from the Throne for promoting nothing less than a Pierre Elliott Trudeau style of federalism with all its consequences. This overbearing and centralizing federalism adamantly refuses to recognize the equality of the two founding peoples, thus thwarting the legitimate ambitions of the Quebec people. This type of federalism wants Quebeckers to choose between being unique like the Pacific salmon or facing the threats of plan B if they want to assert themselves. Never before has a Speech from the Throne so openly threatened Quebeckers' right to decide their own future.

In the face of this spurious choice of a renewed federalism provided everyone fits the same mold, we say that our aspirations are legitimate, that they are imbued with the spirit of democracy and that we are marching down that road to freedom and to our future.

Getting back to the issue of health care and the government's plans as stated in the throne speech, I would like to talk about the way the cuts were distributed. The Liberals go around preening and busting their britches over their balancing the budget by next year. However they are not saying how they got to that point.

They do not mention that for the most part cuts have been made at the expense of the poorest of the poor. Nor do they boast about the fact that they cut $4.5 billion in transfer payments to the provinces, including $1.3 billion to Quebec alone. Also, they neglect to mention that the government has grabbed the surpluses in the unemployment insurance fund, to which it stopped contributing several years ago.

Not a word either about the federal departments' expenditures, which were supposed to be cut by 19 percent but were reduced by only 9 percent, or less than half the Liberals' rather modest goal. Moreover they hide the fact that 54 percent of the cuts made were to social programs, health care and education.

But we in the Bloc Quebecois are going to tell it all. We are not going to let the Prime Minister and his finance minister get credit for the sacrifices made by others.

This is typical of Liberal smoke and mirrors. Governments in Quebec and the other provinces are made to look like heavies, because they have been forced to make cuts and not Ottawa, which in turn steps in as a saviour using the money it took from workers and the neediest and reinvesting mere crumbs in areas which are not even under its jurisdiction, namely social programs, education and once again health care. I say “once again” because this is not the first time the Liberals have tried to intrude on health care.

They date back to the first red book, which called for the creation of a national forum on health, raising objections from all of the provinces because they had no representation on it. No provincial minister was allowed to take part. And anyway, a number of them had already carried out a similar exercise. Here, once again, they were having standards and views dictated to them, while the provinces were the ones that knew what they needed in the area of health.

This Forum cost $12 million at the very least. They are shoving the unemployed onto welfare because of the cuts, but paying $12 million for a national forum which leaves no room for the provinces. They tabled a condescending report which was a total endorsement of federal interference in the health field. This report went beyond the Prime Minister's expectations, and here he is ready to spread his tentacles further out into this area of provincial jurisdiction.

They found new ways to interfere. Take tax credits for home-based care, for example. Not only are they interfering but they are adding to what has already been put into place.

In red book II, the Liberals promised to create a new credit for home-based care. In the Speech from the Throne, they say they want to follow up on this promise of interference. Having seen the Liberals make cuts in transfer payments for social programs that could reach a total of $42 billion between 1995 and 2003, what are we to think when we see them announcing a new annual program worth some one hundred million dollars? This is nothing more and nothing less than hypocrisy.

Rather than including that amount in the transfer payments to the provinces, the federal government is using its powers of taxation to interfere in the delivery of home care, an area that comes under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government wants to see its maple leaf logo on the cheques, rather than leaving the provinces alone to manage their own areas of jurisdiction.

And what about another attempt at interference, the integration of a federal drug plan? According to the throne speech, the federal government will establish a national plan, with national standards, a timetable and a fiscal framework to set up its new discovery in the area of meddling and duplication: drug insurance. This meddling and duplication is unacceptable.

It is out of the question for the federal government to come along and impose its own standards, when the whole thing is already set up. The Liberals must promise to provide a system whereby those provinces not interested in participating or already having such a program, like Quebec, can withdraw from the program, with full compensation.

Then there is the Canadian information system. The Canadian health information system is another example of the federal government's centralizing tendencies. Here come the Liberals again with the announcement they made in the latest budget on the Canadian health information system, a fund worth $50 million over three years.

Madam Speaker, you are telling me I have only a minute left, but I still have a lot to say. However, I will move to my conclusion.

What we in the Bloc Quebecois object to is that this is the Liberal government's tactic of smoke and mirrors, of doing anything to save face. We in the Bloc, however, have news for the Prime Minister. People are no longer being taken in by this sort of antic. Quebecers are increasingly aware of what goes on here and can count on the 44 members of the Bloc Quebecois, who will be here every day, in every debate, to reveal the pretence and go beyond appearances, to show people what really goes on here, even though that may not be to the liking of the other side of the House.

[Petitions, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the people of my riding.

This petition reads as follows—I shall summarize because it is rather long:

“We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, wish to point out to the House of Commons as follows:

Whereas the federal government refuses to initiate a proper investigation into the events surrounding the tax free transfer to the United States of $2 billion from a family trust on December 23, 1991;

Consequently, we call upon Parliament to initiate a special independent inquiry with a mandate to cast light on the events surrounding the decision of December 23, 1991, and on the subsequent use of that tax loophole by other rich Canadian taxpayers”.

[Member For Bourassa, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the liberal member for Bourassa gave another very subtle analysis of the national question and its impact on the economy.

With his well known sensitivity, he explained to us that the economic renewal is the work of the federal government while the economic problems can all be blamed on the Bouchard government. Clearly, the hon. member for Bourassa completed his Ph.D. in economic demagogy at the Federal Liberal University.

As to the declaration of the President of the Conseil du patronat français, who said that “French economic circles are not worried” by Quebec sovereignty, the hon. member considered that it should go unnoticed in the antisovereigntist paranoia.

Yet, this is more than words since the French firm GEM PLUS announced a $20 million investment in a research center in Montreal. It is a sad observation, but the good news for Quebec do not rejoice Liberal members when they do not serve Liberal propaganda.

[Health, April 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, after cutting some $4.5 billion in social transfers to the provinces, including over $2 billion for health, does the minister recognize it is outrageous that his government would now consider implementing new programs in an area that comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces? This is what is outrageous.

[Health, April 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Yesterday, the minister told us about his intention to set up new programs for home care and pharmacare. The election campaign is already underway for the Liberals, who announced that they intend to promote a new intrusion in an area under provincial jurisdiction, so as to make political gains.

Will the minister guarantee to those provinces not interested in taking part in these programs an opting out privilege, with full financial compensation?

[Broadcast Act, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, perhaps for the last time in this 35th Parliament, to participate in this debate on Bill C-216. Perhaps this bill will show all that the Bloc Quebecois has done to defend not only the

interests of Quebec and francophone minorities but also, throughout this 35th Parliament, our language and culture, in the interests of Quebecers and every francophone community across Canada as well.

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit negative option billing by broadcasters, that is to say cable distributors, a practice that leaves it up to consumers to specify whether or not they want to keep the service for which they are billed by the company.

This basic principle contained in the bill, which looks commendable at first glance, appears to be in the best interests of consumers, but it does not necessarily benefit everyone. I do not question the motives of the hon. member who presented the bill, but I think it does not succeed in giving full privileges to every francophone community in Quebec and across Canada.

First, this bill tells us that the first problem is that the marketing operations of any federal agency come under provincial jurisdiction. The bill introduced in this House meddles in jurisdictions already assigned to the provinces.

Throughout this Parliament, we have repeatedly condemned all these encroachments on provincial jurisdictions and overlapping jurisdictions. The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that this bill interferes directly with provincial jurisdictions. Let us bear in mind that any federal agency that has a commercial component falls under exclusive provincial jurisdictions.

Second, in its proposed form, the bill would have the effect of making it more difficult to provide French language services in those communities where such services are provided, including in the French speaking communities outside Quebec and in that province.

Third, this bill is not at all in line with the structure of the cable industry. The Bloc Quebecois opposed this bill primarily because it is a blatant case of interfering in a provincial jurisdiction, but also because it will be very hard to offer new services in French anywhere, since the bill provides that, in order for a company to provide a new service, it must get the approval of all its customers. This is difficult to understand.

I would like to quote the Hon. Francis Fox who, when he presented his submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, on April 8, 1997, looked at the measures taken since the eighties to protect French culture in Canada. Mr. Fox stated that Bill C-216 goes against these measures, and that the person who drafted this legislation has no idea of the specificity of the French culture.

Allow me to quote a few excerpts from the Mr. Fox's submission. He said: "I deeply believe that this bill, in its present form, would have harmful and destructive effects, not only for affected companies, but for the French component of our broadcasting system".

Mr. Fox also said this: "In its present form, this bill will either not allow new French language services to get started, or will prevent them from doing so at a reasonable price, thus depriving francophones in this country from having access, in their language-something which is definitely feasible-to programming services offering a greater variety and a greater wealth of information".

Here is another excerpt: "This bill totally overlooks the francophone issue, whether in Quebec, in New Brunswick, or in Manitoba. Extending new French language services becomes an utopia".

This is why we must take an in-depth look at the possible consequences of all the measures introduced in this House.

Passing this bill would again create federal interference in an area under provincial jurisdiction. It is important to note that the billing of a cable service is a commercial transaction between a consumer and a vendor, and that such transactions clearly come under provincial jurisdiction.

In other words, even if a body such as the CRTC has the authority to licence broadcasting companies, in Quebec it is the Government of Quebec which has the required jurisdiction to regulate relations between companies and their consumers.

A second reason, as I have already stated, not to support Bill C-216 is that it would prevent any new French-language service from seeing the light of day, while at the same time seriously jeopardizing the ones already in existence. The explanation for this phenomenon is very simple. A specialty channel is aimed at a specific segment of the public: Canal D, RDS, RDI and the Family Channel, for example, are not all aimed at the same audience. Since all channels are not met with the same interest in the general public, the cable companies take advantage of certain channels' large audiences, and therefore their cost-effectiveness, to maintain others which generally are less profitable, since they have only a limited audience.

If people, especially those in English Canada, select all the channels they want to receive, obviously the French language channels will no longer be in demand and will no longer have the necessary cost-effectiveness to ensure their survival. So, once again, here we are in a vicious circle: fewer francophones, fewer services; fewer services, fewer francophones.

It is clear, particularly in Ontario and the West, that the absence of rules has led to certain distributors' going too far. This proved to be a disastrous experiment and the consumers were up in arms. Yet, with good faith and a healthy helping of common sense, it is possible for the cable companies to do effective marketing, while

complying with the law and respecting the fundamental rights of consumers.

So, in order to avoid the negative and pointless impact on the development of French language television in Canada and in Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois is obliged to vote against Bill C-216.

[Anti-Smoking Legislation, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, everyone remembers the broken promise to scrap the GST.

Now that we know the worth of this government's promises, could we also know, before the elections, the amendments the minister intends to make to this legislation?

[Anti-Smoking Legislation, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

For weeks, the official opposition and event organizers have asked the Minister of Health to change his anti-smoking legislation. Each time, they met with refusal. On the eve of federal elections, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health are promising that by the end of 1997 they will introduce a bill to amend the anti-smoking legislation, which would meet international standards on sponsorships.

How does the government explain its decision now, on the eve of elections, to promise amendments to the legislation on tobacco industry sponsorships, when these amendments were proposed by the Bloc Quebecois and all rejected by the government in committee and in the House?

[Krever Inquiry, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the minister whether they will really extend the mandate of the Krever inquiry, as requested by Chief Justice Lamer.

[Krever Inquiry, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health.

We just heard that the Minister of Health will not extend the mandate of the Krever inquiry, contrary to a request by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

How does the minister explain his decision to ignore the request made by Chief Justice Lamer?