Jacques Saada

[Points of Order, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I can talk about this knowledgeably because I read the part that my hon. colleague is referring to. There was in fact a short paragraph on the front page of the householder that the hon. member sent to her riding. It was in a small shaded box and was supposedly written in French, indicating that the documents might be available in French or that information in French could be obtained from the office.

I was utterly unable to understand what was written, so completely fractured was the French. There were words that do not exist in French. There were words that could be understood individually, but had nothing to do with the subject. The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer was perfectly justified in his criticism.

[Points of Order, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to be more specific in her allegation.

[Privilege, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise two points very briefly. I do not want to take too much of the House's time on this matter.

First, I want to inform my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance that I never referred to anyone leaking anything. I fully respect the possibility that the hon. colleague did nothing reprehensible in this regard.

The matter--decriminalizing marijuana use--that was debated or talked about by the media has been the subject of public debate in the House for many many months now. There is nothing new here. This is a tempest in a teapot.

[Privilege, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out that in his statement, my hon. colleague asked that majority members behave in exemplary fashion. I hope he does not mean by that that those members who are not majority members are exempt from such behaviour.

Second, just a few days ago, a preliminary report dealing with the issue under consideration in this committee was released. This goes to show that much was already in the public domain.

Third, I want to associate myself with what my hon. colleague opposite said in this respect. The issue of leaks that breach the confidentiality of reports before they are released to the public is not a new one. It has been a problem for some time. Not so long ago, not quite two years ago, I remember speaking out against the approach taken by the then member for Berthier—Montcalm, who granted an interview on the Sunday morning when the report was to be tabled on the Monday.

I do not find this kind of thing acceptable. I agree with the principle. I am simply challenging today's allegation that this principle whereby reports must remain confidential until they are tabled has been violated by my colleagues. I prefer to stick to facts. These are that a report was tabled, and there have been extensive discussions about its contents before the report was finalized. This in no way suggests that the final report was made public earlier than it should have been.

[Points of Order, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, during oral question period, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot called the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food a liar out loud several times. This language is unparliamentary.

Thanks to the very firm stance taken by the member for Shefford and the entire Quebec caucus on this issue, the minister is making every effort to solve the problem of the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot may or may not agree on how things are happening, but that does not give him the right to make this type of unfounded and unparliamentary accusation.

Mr. Speaker, there is no room in this House for insults. I would kindly ask him to withdraw his comments immediately.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am glad that my hon. colleague reminded the House of the federal government's role in funding health care. I am just surprised that he did not think to mention the recent investment of tens of billions of dollars in connection with this agreement on health that was signed at the time.

In terms of electioneering, I will read two relatively short sentences:

I also invite the Premier to watch what he says and does. I listened to what was being said earlier; we must be careful. Now is not the time for insults, or to stir up old quarrels. That is not what the public expects of us. The public expects us to treat the sick and take care of patients.

I was quoting Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, a Liberal member of the National Assembly of Quebec. She realized that the tone used by the Premier of Quebec was not appropriate under the circumstances and that it was aimed at getting votes.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. Minister of Health.

I am pleased to speak today on the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, which reads as follows:

That the federal government give the provinces the additional money for health unconditionally, with the promise of the provinces to use all of it for health, according to the priorities they have established and to provide an accounting to their residents.

It will not come as a surprise to anybody to hear me say that I will be voting against this motion, because of both its wording and content.

First, regarding the wording, it states “That the federal government give the provinces the additional money—”. “The” is a definite article. What money is this? Is it the funding to be provided under the Romanow report? Is it the funding that was debated in the National Assembly of Quebec? Is it money the government intends to hand out left and right? What money are we talking about?

It states further “--unconditionally, with the promise of the provinces to use all of it for health”.

To ask for such a promise is already to impose a condition. This statement is therefore intrinsically contradictory. Will the money be given unconditionally or not?

Let us take this a little further. I would personally be totally opposed to any additional transfer that would make the administrative burden heavier, instead of making the money directly available to patients. I would be totally opposed to any additional transfer that would be used, as happened in the past, to buy labour peace in the short term in order to get votes.

Finally, this motion makes no reference to the conditions set out in the Canada Health Act, which we in Quebec hold dear, like everyone else in Canada. For these reasons, which seem perfectly reasonable to me, I will not be able to vote in favour of a motion that does away with all conditions.

Regarding the amounts and the federal government's funding of health, I heard my hon. colleague opposite mention this earlier. I would like to dispute the validity of propaganda allegations to the effect that the federal government is contributing only 14% to health. This is absolutely not true.

This figure does not take into account tax point transfers, that is the power to levy taxes, which the federal government had and gave to the provinces. It does not take into account equalization payments, which can be used to invest in health, among other things. As we know, equalization is a system whereby federal taxes are redistributed among the have-not provinces.

This 14% figure does not take into account federal investments in health research. I am talking about research centres, centres of excellence, university research, and so on. I am talking about drug approvals. This 14% does not take into account any of these areas of investment.

This figure of 14% is totally wrong. In reality, if we take into account all federal health care investments, the federal government's contribution in this respect is already 40% and not 14%. Furthermore, our Prime Minister has already committed to increasing this share in our next budget.

The motion asks for an unconditional transfer payment. They are saying to us, “Give us the money. The rest is none of your business”. As if the federal government did not have to justify how it is spending taxpayers' money. As if the federal government were not also accountable. This motion does not ask us to work together for the good of the patient while mutually respecting our jurisdictions.

I wonder if the Bloc Québécois had time to read this sentence from the brief presented to the Romanow commission by the Conseil du patronat du Québec, and I quote:

In our opinion, a health care system based on the principle of collegiality needs to be developed, in order to allow both governments to take the necessary steps to reform the system.

I wonder, too, if the Bloc Québécois had time to read this sentence from the brief presented to the Romanow commission by the Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations, and I quote:

Governments must find a way to work together; otherwise, they risk costing Canadians the thing they hold most dear.

I will refrain from making a political analysis on the electoral motives of the Bloc Quebecois or the Parti Quebecois. The people of Quebec will, at the appropriate time, be the judge of the performance of its provincial government in the health area. This leads me to say something that I believe is absolutely fundamental.

When we talk about accountability, provincial governments must be accountable not to the federal government or a federal authority, but rather to their respective people. I understand that the Bloc has introduced an amendment this morning that specifies this and I agree with that amendment.

Many reports have been produced on health in Canada. The Kirby and Romanow reports are only the last ones in a long series. None of these reports is set in stone or is the Canadian government's policy, but all of them have the merit of putting us on track. They force us to reflect. We have an obligation to take action, of course, but to take action wisely. So let us reflect a little.

The Romanow report proposes the creation of a health council of Canada, whose role would concern me at the outset. If it were to be a funnel for the coordination of professional health training and study programs, for the accountability about provincial health management performance and so on, this would be, I think, totally unacceptable.

The spirit of our federation must not allow a federal authority to take over a provincial jurisdiction by giving as an excuse that it is badly managed or that it can do better. On the contrary, the spirit of our federation must allow for the original features and differences that we see in each province and each region.

We will have the opportunity to debate further, in this House and in our ridings, the issue of health, and in particular the Romanow report.

We will talk again about what I consider the strong points in the Romanow report, for example, the maintaining of the five conditions in the Canada Health Act. In this regard, I remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois' motion makes no reference whatsoever to these conditions, which are so important and fundamental to Canadians, including Quebeckers; the Canadian transfer with a built-in escalator established for five years in advance, in other words, stable funding; investments in primary care and home care; support to natural caregivers; creation of a national drug agency; study on patent protection, and so on. I agree with this, this seems interesting to me. I would like the issue to be discussed further.

We will also talk about the serious reservations that I have on my first reading of this report, that is, the health council of Canada, the adding of structures, a potential centralization, the reopening of the Canada Health Act, the rejection of any role for the private sector, and so on.

I must point out that the report contains 387 pages and 47 recommendations. I must respect the work of its authors by taking the time to look at it more closely before taking a particular position. The motion calls for the transfer of unknown amounts of money unconditionally.

If I say that the health system will have to better integrate hospital care in any agreement for federal transfers to the provinces, is this a condition? If the answer is yes, then I would remind members that it is a condition that was agreed to by the premier of the day, Mr. Bouchard, when he signed the health agreement on September 11, 2000.

If I talk about funds that are targeted for primary health care or for home care, is this a condition? If the answer is yes, then again it is a condition that was agreed to by Mr. Bouchard on September 11, 2000. All these conditions and many others are in the interest of the patient, and Mr. Bouchard had the good sense to recognize that fact in signing the agreement.

Therefore, a motion calling for unconditional transfers is unacceptable. It goes against the spirit of the agreement signed on September 11, 2000. I even think that, for the sake of integrity, Mr. Bouchard would have to vote against this motion because it goes against the spirit of the agreement that he signed.

I will vote against this motion because I think that it closes the door to any kind of cooperation between the Government of Canada and provincial governments. I will vote against this motion because only cooperation between our governments can lead to the renewal that our health care system so badly needs; a cooperation that is based on absolute respect for our respective jurisdictions and on the premise that initiatives that have already been undertaken by provincial governments will be taken into account, a cooperation that exists exclusively for the benefit of patients.

I think that this is what Canadians expect from us.

[Business of the House, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and there is an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to re-defer the recorded division requested earlier on report stage of Bill C-4 until Tuesday, December 3, at 3 p.m.

[Business of the House, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties, as well as with the member for Ottawa—Vanier, concerning the order of reference of Bill C-202 listed as Item No. 24 on the order of precedence in today's Order Paper.

In this regard, I move:

That Bill C-202 be referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages as opposed to a legislative committee.

[Ramadan, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all Muslims in Canada a Ramadan Mubarak.

Wednesday marked the beginning of the month-long fast in which Muslims from all over the world abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset. It is a time when Muslims focus on family, communal prayers, alms-giving, self-reflection and community building. It is a time for peace and harmony.

Ramadan presents an opportunity for Canadians to learn more about each other. It is an opportunity to learn more about Islam and about the Muslim community in Canada. Canadians are committed to nurturing and cherishing our diversity. We share a vision of a country where diverse backgrounds of citizens are recognized and appreciated. The end of Ramadan will be marked by celebration and prayer on Eid ul-Fitr , or feast of the fast-breaking, on December 6.