Pauline Picard

[Family Income, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a study done by Statistics Canada which was released yesterday revealed that the after-tax income of families dropped 2.1 per cent in 1993. Compared to 1989, Quebec and Canadian families have on the average $3,025 less money to spend per year. All levels of society have been hit by this drop which started in 1989 and which has carried us back to income levels we have not been seeing since the early 1970s. Even the poorest families have seen their after-tax income drop since 1989.

Economists predict that this decline could very well continue over the next few years, all the more so because the federal government's unemployment insurance reforms are having a negative impact on workers at the lower end of the pay scale. The dignity of working is above all the dignity of being able to earn a living at it. That is what the government should have realized before it started blindly cutting its support to those in need.

[Tainted Blood, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, more damning revelations were made yesterday by Dr. Perrault in connection with the work of the Krever Commission.Dr. Perrault, formerly of the Red Cross, stated that only one national political authority could have resolved the impasse at the time and prevented the infection of hundreds of hemophiliacs.

For the first time, Dr. Perrault indicated that this political authority was the federal Minister of Health, since the products used by hemophiliacs were clearly under federal jurisdiction.

Despite these allegations, Justice Krever still does not intend to ask the federal politicians involved in the matter to testify before the commission. Why this stubbornness? Whose interests are being served by not having this whole disturbing business come to light? The Bloc Quebecois is wondering about the real reasons keeping the whole truth on this terrible tragedy from coming out.

[Bovine Somatotropin, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether or not her department is taking any measures to enforce the Food and Drugs Act under which, as she told this House, the use of somatotropin is prohibited in Canada, and if so, what measures have been taken?

[Bovine Somatotropin, June 12th, 1995]

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

Last Friday, in response to questions from the official opposition, neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Minister of Health were able to confirm whether there had been an investigation into the illegal use of somatotropin in Canada.

Will the minister undertake to table the investigation report prepared by her department to confirm that this hormone is not being used illegally in Canada?

[Tainted Blood, May 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Justice.

Will the minister admit that the information disclosed to the Krever commission so far is sufficiently incriminating to justify pressing criminal charges against those individuals whose irresponsible behaviour led to the tainted blood tragedy?

[Tainted Blood, May 16th, 1995]

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

The Minister of Health has refused to take a clear and definite stand on the need to press criminal charges, once the Krever inquiry is over, against those individuals whose carelessness caused the death of hundreds of men, women and children.

Since the Minister of Health failed to take a stand on this issue, does the Minister of Justice undertake to see that justice is served and that, once the Krever inquiry is over, charges are laid against those whose behaviour caused the death of hundreds of haemophiliacs?

[Somatotropin, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the minister to read this weekend's La Presse .

How can the Minister of Health think that the Minister of Agriculture's moratorium has any effect at all, when appreciable quantities of this hormone are entering Canada, and does she intend punishing those using this hormone despite the ban?

[Somatotropin, May 15th, 1995]

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

We learned in La Presse on the weekend that somatotropin has been entering Canada freely as customs officers are unauthorized to stop it. All the while, the Minister of Health is imagining that this hormone, which may pose a health hazard, is not being used because of a moratorium on it.

Would the minister tell us whether Health Canada is taking particular action against those who are importing somatotropin, because the use of it is banned?

[Cn Commercialization Act, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-89. You may wonder why the health critic is interested in privatization or in Bill C-89. I am interested in this matter because CN trains go through my riding; they even go through one of the largest cities in my riding.

This bill would allow the government to privatize the most symbolic of Crown corporations: CN. It is surprising, to say the least, to see how fast symbols are disappearing from Canada these days. Institutions that were previously considered a sacred trust are now faced with the sorry state of government finance.

The CBC's mandate has gradually eroded, since the government no longer gives this corporation the financial resources needed to meet its original goals. The Canadian health care system is also caught in our government's financial mess. While some still see our health care system as the great Canadian unifying project, many realize, in the light of what is happening across Canada, that the provinces can only do so much given the federal government's unilateral cuts.

Privatizing CN would remove another page from our album of Canadian symbols. No other institution has done so much to help shape Canada as we still know it today.

How many towns and regions took shape and developed around the railways? Yesterday's symbols are being destroyed by the government's financial impasse. Through this bill, the government wants to establish a mechanism that would allow it to remove one of these symbols from its public accounts.

By and large, we agree with this move. We will, however, monitor this operation very closely so that privatization does not become a mess like the recent shady deal relating to Pearson airport in Toronto. We clearly cannot let the interests of the government's wealthy financial backers prevail over those of taxpayers, who own CN. There are some justified fears that the Pearson airport mess does nothing to allay.

The bill says that the shares of CN will be transferred to the Minister of Transport, who will hold them in trust for the Government of Canada. On the direction of the Minister of Transport, CN will have to submit an application for a certificate of continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act. In fact, CN will cease to exist as a crown corporation and become a business corporation.

The bill imposes certain constraints on the new articles of continuance of CN. First, the voting shares that an individual or group of persons can hold is limited to 15 per cent; second, the head office is to remain in Montreal; and third, once privatized, CN will remain subject to the Official Languages Act.

If passed, this bill would authorize the Minister of Transport to deal with shares of CN with the approval of the Minister of Finance. The Bloc Quebecois has nothing against the principle of privatizing CN. However, we hope that CN will really see its efficiency and competitiveness increase as a result of privatization, as the government claims it will. To ensure that the transaction will produce the expected level of competitiveness for the new owners, CN should not be sold at reduced price. We intend to monitor the government closely in that regard, to prevent taxpayers from making a nice big gift to a privileged few.

So, reviewing the provisions of this bill, we find certain flaws that we would like to see remedied before final approval. Clause 8 of the bill imposes a constraint on the total percentage of shares that an individual or group of individuals can hold. The limit is set at 15 per cent. On the other hand, under clause 8(5), a group of individuals known to be associates would be allowed to hold more than 15 per cent of CN shares on presentation of a mere solemn declaration to the effect that these individuals will not act in concert.

It would be up to CN management to determine whether the group in question stood by their solemn declaration and really acted independently rather than in concert. Our main concern is that this leaves the door wide open for a foreign takeover, since a holding could meet these conditions. Several companies operating independently may in fact have the same majority shareholder. This provision, combined with the lack of constraints on foreign ownership, makes us fear a possible loss of Canadian control.

It is the minister's responsibility to keep this asset, built with money from the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada, under Canadian control. It would be unacceptable, after investing billions in public funds in that railway network, to let it fall into the hands of foreign interests. CN must remain under Canadian control to avoid a rerouting of its traffic to feed American railway companies.

Clause 8(5) is unacceptable in its current form, since it allows a foreign group made up of related companies to acquire a majority of CN's shares. The only protection against an effective takeover is a decision by CN's board members to the effect that these businesses comply with their pledge not to act in a concerted manner.

As you know, a company acts first and foremost with its shareholders' interests in mind. If the companies which own CN's stocks are all owned by the same shareholder, they do not have to act in a concerted manner to do the same thing. Consequently, Clause 8(5) must be reviewed or, at least, its application should be restricted to Canadian groups.

We also object to clause 16, where railway and other transportation works, as well as every subsidiary of CN, are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. That clause would allow the federal government to interfere in areas which fall under provincial jurisdiction, such as short-line railways. It would be totally unacceptable, as well as economically inefficient and unjustifiable, to have these railways come under federal jurisdiction.

These companies successfully operate sections which are considered to be unprofitable by major railway companies. They can do so because they are not subjected to the numerous federal regulations on rail transport. These companies need the flexibility afforded by provincial regulations to operate successfully. This attempt by the federal government could deter the development of such companies and could limit their number. It must be understood that each of these short lines operates on sections which were going to be abandoned. If the government interferes with the development of such short lines, more lines in Quebec and in Canada will be abandoned.

I am also concerned about the survival of existing CN subsidiaries whose activities are not related to railway transport. The minister said that those CN subsidiaries which are not directly related to rail transport will be sold separately. These subsidiaries include some Quebec companies which are currently experiencing financial difficulties. We will have to ensure that these companies can survive without CN, and that their current level of employment is maintained.

In conclusion, we will have to review major elements of this bill, so that a badly planned privatization does not result in a waste of all the money the taxpaters of Quebec and Canada invested in CN.

[Health Insurance And Services, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the House for the next few minutes and comment on the motion presented by the hon. member for Surrey North. The motion seeks greater flexibility and thus greater autonomy for the provinces in the provision of health insurance.

For some time now, the Canadian health care system has been at the centre of a wideranging debate on its current, disturbing state, its uncertain future and indeed its very survival. There are many who maintain that our health care system has reached a critical point in is history. We on this side of the House deplore the fact that Canada's Department of Health is consciously absent from the debate, since we believe that the main cause of the sorry state of health care in this country is the federal government's decision to make drastic cuts in funding.

We must not forget that federal cutbacks in health care funding have serious consequences for the public finances of Quebec and other provinces. Quebec Finance Minister Jean Campeau told Quebecers last week about the impact of federal offloading on Quebec's commitments, commitments the Quebec government cannot ignore. The federal government, however, is doing just that, with predictable consequences for the provinces.

The federal government saved several billion dollars at the provinces' expense by unilaterally imposing a freeze on transfer payments for health care.

Moreover, in the last budget, Minister Martin made it very clear that the government would continue to save money at the provinces' expense by cutting $2.5 billion in 1995-96 and about $4.5 billion in 1997-98.

By the end of 1998, $8 billion will have been cut since 1982. And people are surprised to see Minister Rochon cutting mil-

lions of dollars in order to be able to keep providing health care services. Eight billion dollars, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine? What can the provinces do in the face of this kind of offloading?

It should come as no surprise that a motion is before this House, asking the federal government to give the provinces more flexibility so they can decide how to meet the challenge of providing adequate care services to their people.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois cannot support this motion because we feel this would let the government off the hook for the harm it is doing to the entire system. It would be too easy.

It has been some time since the federal government met the commitments it made to its provincial partners in 1977. Today, however, we are being asked only to seek more flexibility which, at best, would mean privatizing certain services or approving the use of private clinics and double billing.

For us there is only one solution: the federal government must withdraw altogether from this provincial jurisdiction and give the provinces fair compensation in the form of tax points.

It is clear that the federal government has reneged on its initial commitments to the provinces. It is also clear that by continuing to apply its standards to an area that falls under provincial jurisdiction, while refusing to pay the real cost, the federal government is like someone who asks you out to dinner and leaves you with the bill.

Although at the time it was very critical of the policy initiated by the previous Conservative government, the present government is accelerating the advent across Canada of a two-tier health care system, with on one side, basic services covered by medicare and on the other, specialized care and advanced technology available to those who can afford it. This means waiting lists for some, but no waiting if you can afford to pay.

Without comprehensive reform and the vision that is necessary for a balanced health care system, excessive funding cuts will set the new standard for the health care system.

They can promise deep reforms all they want, and a national forum presided over by none other than the Prime Minister, it will mean nothing until they go beyond those empty promises.

The problem is that the Minister of Finance could not wait to impose his reforms. In addition, just like his predecessors, he coupled his unilateral, insidious and heavy cuts with mandatory health care system reforms.

You would have to be naïve not to realize that the Canada social transfer is just a veiled attempt to slash funding for education, social assistance and health. You would also have to be naïve to believe the Minister of Health when she says that the Canada social transfer will actually ensure that the health care system stays the way it is, yet give Quebec and the provinces more room to manoeuvre. How can the minister actually say such things, and believe them?

Let us be serious now; there is a paradox in the federal government talking about giving Quebec and the provinces more room to manoeuvre so that they can dispense quality health care services yet all the while continuing to increase the burden placed on the public finances of the provinces.

In 1977, when the federal government created the Canada Health Act, it agreed to assume 50 per cent of the cost of maintaining the health insurance system. Over the years, we have seen that contribution shrink to 38 per cent. Betraying the campaign promises made in the red book, the current government would reduce its share to 28.5 per cent.

The federal government still does not understand that all of these years of offloading to the provinces has aggravated their financial situations as much as it has jeopardized the survival of social programs. What is more is that by imposing overlaps in areas that its own constitution does not give it powers, and by continuing to cut funding, the federal government is preventing Quebec and the provinces from finding real solutions to the financial crisis they are fighting.

As many studies have shown, the federal government's financial intransigence is propelling our health care system towards radical changes. Nevertheless, Quebec and the provinces are all trying to come up with solutions to forestall the disappearance of the current quality standards.

The very essence of the motion before us today bears witness to the will of Quebecers and Canadians to pull out all stops to find a solution. Everybody is working towards this goal, except the centralist government which refuses to live by its own constitution and to respect the provinces' exclusive power over health care.

What is sad, and history proves it, is that the federal government has always had the same ambition: being the only government in Canada.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the Reform Party's motion. Although this motion supports certain principles that we defend and denounces to a certain point the federal government's unilateral pull-out from the Canada Health Act, the contract it signed with the provinces in 1977, it does not get to the crux of the matter.

In our opinion, the provinces should be the only operators in the area of health care. From parliamentary commissions to consultations of all kinds, Quebec and the provinces have demonstrated that they are capable of rising to the health care challenge. If only the government would stop penalizing them with cut after cut without any financial compensation, they

would be able to guarantee dignified health care services which treat people with respect. That is the real solution.