Pauline Picard

[Department Of Health Act, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to begin to debate a bill and be interrupted by question period, but I will nevertheless summarize a bit what I said and then to on.

We are debating an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain Acts. I had said that, in fact, the bill was aimed at replacing the name of the Department of Health and Welfare by the shortened title of Department of Health.

Generally, not a lot of sections have changed, but in reading this bill, we realize that certain sections have been changed, repealed or added, only some. In some cases we see that the government, as a good government, is once again legitimizing its authority and is giving the Minister of Health authority to intervene yet again in areas that are under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

I gave a brief history and I am going to summarize what I said to conclude with the clauses I mentioned earlier, which provide the powers of the minister, who may intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Under section 92(7.16) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and according to the courts, the sectors of health and social services are exclusively under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces. Since as far back as 1919, Ottawa has been getting increasingly involved in these sectors, forcing Quebec even here to comply with so called national standards and objectives.

As far as we are concerned, federal initiatives in the area of health and welfare, except for those dealing specifically with certain groups of people-members of the Canadian Forces, sailors, Indians, immigrants and prisoners-have no clear constitutional basis. They depend entirely on the federal government's spending power, which allows it to take many more major initiatives.

In 1919, the Department of Health was created and the first subsidies granted. In 1948, the national health subsidy program was introduced. In 1957, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was passed by Parliament. The Medical Care Act was

passed in 1966, and the Canada Health Act, known as Bill C-6, in 1984. The Canada Health Act replacing the 1957 and 1966 laws set national standards and imposed requirements limiting the autonomy of Quebec and the provinces. Bill C-6 set out provincial obligations: universality, accessibility, interprovincial portability, public administration, and comprehensiveness. Failure to meet these criteria may lead the federal government to withhold transfer payments to the provinces for health care.

As early as 1926, Quebec denounced the federal government's interference in the area of health, and the reservations then expressed by the Taschereau government were reiterated by every succeeding administration. Health Canada has become so big that its 1995-96 estimates set aside $1.5 billion for operating expenditures-$347 million for personnel costs and $703 million for goods and services-and $6.9 billion for transfer payments. However, this contribution to the provinces, which is, as I was saying, subject to compliance with national standards, does not prevent the federal government from going ahead with its own health and welfare initiatives, as shown by the list I just gave you on the subject of duplication.

The 1991 national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities, with a budget of $46 million over five years; the 1991 federal initiative against violence, with a budget of $136 million over four years; the new horizons program; the seniors secretariat; the national strategy to reduce tobacco use; the national drug strategy; the national AIDS strategy; the pregnancy and child development program; the children's bureau, the national forum on health. All these initiatives directly encroach on existing programs. Such cases of overlap and duplication cost a lot of money.

I would now like to make a few comments on the government's red book commitment with respect to the national forum on health. With respect to health, the federal government does not intend to cut any slack to the provinces, as promised in the fall 1993 election campaign, when its intention to hold a national forum on health, if it was elected, was made public.

The federal health minister made no secret of Ottawa's centralizing designs. During its election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada released a document entitled "Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada", better known as the red book. Reference is made in this book to being committed to holding a national forum on health, and the way this commitment is worded hardly conceals the federal government's desire to take control over health care in Canada. Let me read you what it says. "The role of the federal government should include the mobilization of effort to bring together Canada's wealth of talent and knowledge in the health care field." If that is not the expression of a will to centralize, I do not know what is. "This is a societal issue in which every Canadian has an interest. The federal government must provide the means to ensure that Canadians are involved and informed, and can understand the issues and the options."

On june 29, 1994, despite the objections of the provinces, the federal health minister announced the creation of this forum. To date, four work sessions have been held, and not one province is represented at this forum. The forum's mandate is to develop a vision of what the Canadian health care system will be in the 21st century; foster dialogue with Canadians concerning their health care system to ensure that, while respecting the general principles of the system and preserving its benefits, the renewal process under way will make the system better and lead to greater public health; establish priorities for the future and bring about a wider consensus on the changes that are required.

Following the invitation sent by the federal health minister,Mr. Rochon, Quebec's minister of health and social services, gave the following reasons, in a letter dated October 14, 1994, to explain why the Quebec government would not participate.

The mandate of this forum is an encroachment by the federal government in a field which essentially falls under provincial jurisdiction, and that is unacceptable. The clearly stated objective of your government, which is to give the forum a mandate to define future priorities, in the context of health care reform, and to define the means to that end, is a direct intrusion in provincial governments' affairs. This is something that cannot be hidden behind the consultative nature you ascribe to the recommendations that would come out of this forum.

That was the Quebec health minister's response to his federal counterpart.

Quebec's health minister also pointed out that Quebec had not waited for the presumed leadership of the federal government to undertake a reform, adding that important concrete measures had been taken, that an extensive public hearing process had enabled Quebecers to state their views and their needs, thus fostering a joint effort to define priorities and means of action, and that, in recent years, the federal government had made major cuts in its transfers to the provinces.

What we have here is yet another measure which demonstrates the federal government's intention to get involved in the health sector. Indeed, Bill C-95 includes provisions which clearly give the health minister a legitimate power to interfere, yet again, in fields of provincial jurisdiction.

If we look at these clauses, far from acting in good faith by withdrawing from this area that does not come under its jurisdiction, the federal government has every opportunity to gradually take over areas of provincial jurisdiction when it is in its interest. I am not saying that this is a major bill; it has been portrayed as harmless and inconsequential, but the reality is far different.

Subclause 4(1) of Bill C-95 sets out the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Health. It proposes that the minister's powers extend to "all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the promotion and preservation of the health of the people of Canada".

The Department of National Health and Welfare Act contained a similar provision. Parliament's jurisdiction over public health could cause confusion. This provision should be more specific.

The following clauses are more subtle. Subclause 4(2) lists the health minister's powers, duties and functions, including "the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social well-being of the people of Canada".

This provision would give the federal government the authority and legitimacy to interfere in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Subclause 4(2) then mentions "the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health and the spreading of diseases". This does not appear in the original act that Bill C-95 would replace.

This would allow the federal government to move to protect the health and safety of the people in the name of national interest and of the power to ensure peace, order and good government. Paragraph 4(1)(c) places investigation and research into public health, including the monitoring of diseases, under federal jurisdiction.

This provision creates a problem, since clause 12 provides that "nothing in this act or the regulations authorizes the minister or any officer or employee of the department to exercise any jurisdiction or control over any health authority operating under the laws of any province". There is obvious confusion here.

How does Health Canada plan to ensure this continuous disease control monitoring without having access to the necessary information? According to the Act respecting health services and social services, health care institutions are health agencies governed by provincial legislation.

Is that really a problem? Does clause 12 effectively limit federal intervention in health matters or is it a mere front put up to reassure the provinces, a line that the federal government will have no qualms crossing if and when it pleases, as it has done in recent years?

Clause 4 may therefore be interpreted rather freely and broadly. There certainly is cause for concern about the real scope of this clause, which can be interpreted many different ways and ascribed many intentions. This is how, as usual, the federal government tries to expand into provincial areas of jurisdiction through a seemingly simplistic and innocuous project.

But no one is fool enough not to guess what it is up to. Bill C-95 is another fine example of the federal way of doing things: silently, without making any waves, because it knows full well that no one agrees with its handling of health care.

Needless to say that, for all those reasons and many more-that my colleagues will have the opportunity to raise later on-, we cannot support in any way Bill C-95. Mr. Speaker, before closing, I would like to table the following amendment to Bill C-95.

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following: "this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-95, An Act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain Acts, because the principle of the Bill does not provide for including in the Minister's powers, duties and functions, the power to award full and entire financial compensation to any province wishing to exercise fully its jurisdiction over health".

[Department Of Health Act, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have left?

[Department Of Health Act, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak for 40 minutes to Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts.

In fact, the purpose of this bill is to shorten the name of the Department of Health and Welfare to Department of Health. Yet, in reading Bill C-95, we realize that some sections have been amended, repealed or added so that the government can, under the pretence of providing good government, give the Minister of Health the legitimate power to interfere once again in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. We are faced, once again, with this overwhelming desire to centralize everything.

Since I like setting the record straight, I will give you a short history lesson.

As the type of political system that would prevail in the future Canadian union was being defined in 1867, it was easy to see the emergence of two opposite views of federal-provincial relations. On one side, John Macdonald wanted a strong central government that could devolve certain powers to the provinces as it saw fit. On the other side, Cartier definitely favoured a highly decentralized confederation. In French dictionaries, confederation is defined as the union of several sovereign states.

We know only too well what this led to. Powers were indeed distributed between the two levels of government, so that each would have exclusive jurisdiction over their own areas of responsibility.

But things are never as clear cut as they seem with the federal government. The government kept in its hand what it considered as a trump card, which proved to be harmful to federal-provincial relations: the power to spend and to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada.

This way, the federal government could still do as it pleased in any provincial area of responsibility, without paying attention to the distribution of powers guaranteed by the constitution. And this was definitely planned and hoped for. This is confirmed by Alexander Galt, one of the fathers of confederation, who stated that the distribution of powers, as described in the British North American Act of 1867, did not provide the provinces with enough funding to properly look after the areas falling under their jurisdiction. This means that the very document that gave rise to a new Canadian union provided that the provinces would not have sufficient funding and that the federal government should step in to compensate the members of this union.

Unable to have a highly centralized federal system from day one, John Macdonald made sure that its power to encroach would enable it to intervene in any jurisdiction it pleased and to impose its views on the provinces, even with respect to exclusive provincial jurisdictions.

It may be difficult for some to recognize that this is what those who drafted the British North America Act had in mind. It may be difficult for them to believe that what they like to refer to, wrongly I must say, as the most decentralized system in the world, already provided, in its embryonic state, an increasing centralization of power in favour of Ottawa.

Yet, the comments made by Alexander Galt, whom I quoted earlier, leave no doubt as to those initial intentions, and nor do the remarks made by another architect of the Act of 1867, who said that, in the long run, the provinces would become nothing more than large municipalities under the control of the federal government, on which they would greatly depend. We were not there at the time to see what was going on, but these people were, and they even wrote about it.

This is how the structure in which we still live, unfortunately, was developed and set up. I made reference to our history at the very beginning of my speech to show that, to this day, and contrary to what many would like us to believe, nothing has changed. This centralizing vision which gives greater power to the federal government is not mentioned in the speeches of today's key players on the federal scene, but it is obvious in their actions. The best example is certainly the health sector in general, where the federal has been interfering constantly and increasingly for decades. Bill C-95, which is now before us, is evidence of that.

Section 92.16 of the Constitution Act gives provinces jurisdiction over health related issues on their territory, by generally providing for all matters of a purely local or private nature within a province. Moreover, sections 92.7, 92.13 and 92.16 of the same act also give the provinces jurisdiction over hospitals, the medical profession and practice, as well as health related laws in general, on their territory.

We can say that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction since it involves ownership and civil rights.

In the light of what I just said, it is obvious that health care is an area which should come under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. However, the federal government has been interfering in this area, in various ways, for several years now.

The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, the Medical Care Act and, more recently, the famous Canada Health Act, which combines both previous acts and crystallizes so-called national standards, show how the federal government deals with areas of shared jurisdiction. Its initiatives aimed at increasing the

federal presence in these areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction are being justified by its spending power, which creates problems not only in the health care area, but I will not have enough time to list the many disputes it has caused, others will do it for me, I am sure.

For my part, I will paint a picture showing what happens when a government is unwilling to admit that it cannot afford to do and decide everything on behalf of the provinces. This picture has as a backdrop the acute crisis the health care system is going through in Canada and Quebec.

The federal government's temptation or desire to interfere in the health care area is not new. In fact, right after the second world war the federal government took over all major fields of taxation to make sure it would receive almost all the taxes normally levied by the provinces.

At the end of the war, the government got a bright idea: instead of giving the taxing powers back to the provinces, it would redistribute the money through grants conditional on standards set by the federal government. That was an ingenious way to encroach even further upon areas not within the federal jurisdiction, at a time when the London Privy Council, the equivalent in those days of our Supreme Court, wanted to restrain the federal government's tendency to centralize. In the health area, the Established Programs Financing Act is a good example of what I said earlier: this government refuses to accept that it cannot do everything and be everywhere.

Created in 1977, the EPF program has kept the same structure ever since. However, the growth rate has not been as expected over the last ten years. That is what brought about the shortfall, as we call it, for the provinces and Quebec in the health area. In 1986, the federal government reduced the growth rate of transfers by 2 per cent. It was the beginning of a long series of payment cuts. In 1989, the indexing factor was again reduced by 1 per cent. In 1990, Bill C-69 froze transfers to the 1989-90 level for two years supposedly. In 1991, the government announced that the freeze would be maintained for three more years. During most of that blighted period for the health care system, the opposition cried its outrage. It said loud and clear that this process could only push the system to its own ruin.

But the same party, now in government, is weakening the system even further. Between 1977 and 1994, the federal contribution to health went from 45.9 per cent to 33.7 per cent, a drop of 10.6 per cent which Quebec and the provinces have had to absorb as best they could. Unfortunately, the mismanagement condemned not so long ago by the Minister of Labour and the Deputy Prime Minister seems to still be with us.

My predictions for 1997-98 are that the federal contribution will slide as low as 28.5 per cent of funding. Over the years, as Ottawa disengaged itself from health funding, Quebec alone was left $8 billion short. Eight billion dollars which the Government of

Quebec had to scramble to find elsewhere. To that figure can be added the projected cuts in the Canada social transfer of $308 million in 1995-96 and more than $587 million in 1997-98.

The leeway that was to be afforded by the Canada social transfer is in reality merely the opportunity for Quebec and the provinces to make their own choices as to where they would make the cuts to absorb this unilateral disengagement. This is how the present Liberal government sees decentralization. This is what it means by flexible federalism. No thanks, we are not interested.

As I have already said, articles 92.7 and 16 of the British North America Act allocate health and social services exclusively to the provinces. There is, however, also a federal health department.

Next year, the federal Department of Health will cost the taxpayers in excess of one billion dollars, a billion dollars wasted doing what the governments of Quebec and the provinces could very well do themselves.

Moreover, this superfluous department allocates sizeable amounts for programs and projects already in existence in Quebec. Let me give you some examples of these, Mr. Speaker: the strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities, the campaign against family violence, the new horizons program, the seniors secretariat, the tobacco strategy, the drug strategy, the AIDS strategy, the program on pregnancy and child development, the children's bureau-I could go on and on.

The federal cuts should have been in these areas of duplication, but it insists on having a finger in every pie, and the disastrous effect on public finances does not seem to be enough to convince it to accept reality.

[Social Program Reform, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has deliberately been cruising in neutral since the end of September while waiting for the Quebec referendum results. Major changes to unemployment insurance and old age pensions will soon be introduced, and they will hit people harder than ever before since the inception of these programs.

We are aware of the societal choice being made in Ottawa, thanks to secret documents leaked to the public. We know that this choice is totally inconsistent with Quebec's aspirations in terms of society. The wind of change coming from Ottawa is really a flurry of drastic cuts that has Quebec shivering.

Those who chose to hide the truth from Quebecers will have to take the blame for it.

[Old Age Security, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Yesterday, the minister refused to admit that a document from his department entitled "Serving Canada's Seniors" does indeed show the direction his government intends to follow in restructuring old age security programs.

The government has been saying since its budget of February 1994 that it would table a document unveiling its new approach.

How can the government justify that, after reviewing Canada's old age security program for over 18 months, the human resources minister still claims that he has not yet made a decision on the new direction to be taken? Mr. Speaker, it has been 18 months.

[Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-315 standing in the name of the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

The purpose of this bill is to complement the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves obtained by certain corporations. It is part of a debate that has been going on for several years about the best way to protect personal information obtained or held by federally regulated private corporations.

In the public sector, the federal Privacy Act already protects employees and the public against abuse of this information. However, this legislation does not in any way affect the activities of private companies that are subject to the Canada Labour Code. The latter are therefore free to act as they see fit.

Although it is certainly not my purpose to point an accusing finger, we must admit that in some cases, this could lead to abuse both unpleasant and unfortunate.

In Quebec, as the hon. member pointed out on first reading of this bill, a number of unique legislative measures were introduced to improve the protection of personal information. In fact, Quebec's Civil Code deals with the issue of protecting individual privacy, which provisions came into force by a decision of the National Assembly in 1993.

The Commission d'accès à l'information, chaired by the former director of Le Devoir , is responsible for implementation of the various provisions included in the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information. Finally, since 1994 the same commission has been responsible for implementing legislation on the protection of information in the private sector.

This goes to show that the protection of personal information, both in the private and public sectors, requires considerable co-ordination between the various acts and regulations and the activities of those responsible for compliance and enforcement. Although I did not say so explicitly, it is of course not easy to protect privacy fully and effectively. In this respect, Bill C-315 may seem to be somewhat lacking.

First, in its present form Bill C-315 regulates only the sale of lists. These lists of names containing personal and confidential information could therefore be lent or given away without breaking the law. Since these are still the same lists with the same information, it seems to me that the mere fact of passing them on to various organizations, for purposes for which they were not intended initially, should be prohibited and punished in the same way, whether or not any money changed hands.

Another aspect I think is unsatisfactory is the description or enumeration of what constitutes personal information. As we read the bill, we see that information as important as mother tongue, place of birth, sexual orientation and political affiliation is not included. Does this mean that this kind of information is not important enough to warrant protection? It would be important, in my opinion, for all information liable to trafficking, or rather to commerce, to be protected.

Another point: Bill C-315 deals with the transmission of lists containing personal information. This implies that any entrepreneur so desiring may, in total legality, sell information concerning one individual without risking any sanction. This point, in my opinion, constitutes a significant glitch in the very principle the bill is defending.

Before I conclude, looking at the sanctions set out in the bill, it will be seen that fines for noncompliance range from $5,000 to $10,000. To large companies, which generally have fairly sizeable lists, these fines do not mean much, particularly when we know the price a list containing confidential personal information can command.

There is no point here in continuing to examine Bill C-315 line by line. Merely reading its contents, plus a proper knowledge of the situation it is trying to control, is enough to understand that this bill, although well intentioned, is far from being equal to the objective it has set itself. There are many shortcomings in this bill. A number of amendments could be made to it. It seems to us that the best way of ensuring a complement to the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of Canadians might have been to follow the same path as the new Quebec Civil Code. However, since the bill represents at least a small step forward, the Bloc will support it.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, now that his game is up, will the minister confirm that, among other things, it will be more difficult to qualify for unemployment insurance, that thousands of young people will be excluded from the scheme and that benefits will be reduced to half an individual's salary and paid for a shorter period? Will he finally acknowledge this?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The CSN today made public the content of the unemployment insurance reform bill. This bill has been kept hidden up to now by the Minister of Human Resources Development, because it contains a number of cuts directed at the unemployed.

How can the Minister of Human Resources Development expect to earn the trust of Quebecers when he keeps a bill, which is in fact ready to be made public, hidden from them until after the referendum?

[Referendum Campaign, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said in this House that Clyde Wells was in favour of a distinct society. Are we to understand that when the minister and her Prime Minister talk about distinct society, they are referring to the same definition as Clyde Wells, in other words, a definition that is completely meaningless and without any of the powers demanded by Quebec for more than 30 years?

[Referendum Campaign, October 25th, 1995]

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

When the Prime Minister talks about distinct society, he keeps referring to a concept that is meaningless and subordinate to the principle of equality for all the provinces, a concept that was rejected by Quebecers in the referendum on Charlottetown.

Yesterday, it was impossible to get a specific answer from the Minister of Labour, so we will ask her the same question today. Could the Minister of Labour tell us what kind of distinct society the Prime Minister wants for Quebec, the Charlottetown one, which is meaningless because it is subordinate to the equality of the provinces or the Meech Lake one, which the Prime Minister opposed so strenuously?