Richard Marceau

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I came to lend a helping hand to my friend and colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

It is a pleasure to participate in this extremely important take note debate on the future of our health care system, and more specifically on what we commonly call the Romanow commission.

First, I would like to stress the fact that, whenever the government decides to create a commission, it chooses with great care the person who will chair that commission. The government knows that the philosophy and the ideology of that person will naturally play an important role in the findings of the commission.

The Prime Minister has chosen Mr. Romanow, a New Democrat as we know, and a former Premier of Saskatchewan. We know and we often see, in the House, that the NDP strongly supports centralizing social powers in Canada; it is keen on national standards and believes that “Ottawa knows best”. The ideology of that party is one of centralization. The New Democratic culture has been left its mark on Mr. Romanow. That was my first point.

Second, Mr. Romanow, as we know—and incidentally, this happened 20 years ago this year, the anniversary was celebrated very well—, was a major player in the recent history of Quebec and Canada, when he schemed with his friend, the current Prime Minister, in the kitchen of the Chateau Laurier, to patriate the Constitution in spite of Quebec, in spite of what Quebec wanted.

These two elements demonstrate Mr. Romanow's vision: first with respect to the place of Quebec, in particular, but also to the role of the provinces in the Canadian federation.

Mr. Romanow published an preliminary report, as has been said many times in the House. From the outset, Mr. Romanow stated that Canadians do not want a 10-tiered system. He was alluding to the provinces and to Quebec.

Clearly, his philosophy is that there should only be one system in Canada, and that this system must be managed in Ottawa, this system, the philosophy, the elements, and that decisions must be made in Ottawa instead of being left to the provinces.

This also demonstrates the vision whereby there can only be one vision. This is the Canadian vision, which scorns any different ways that the other provinces, and obviously Quebec in particular, may want to proceed.

In its preliminary report, the commission completely disregarded Quebec's jurisdiction. This is something we know and we must repeat over and over. As sovereignists, it becomes tiring to have to repeat it to people who should know their constitution, since they claim to be defending it. Health is under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Health is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

How can we accept this vision of one single health care system where everything would be decided here in Ottawa? In fact, and I quote from page 43 of the report:

—governments may need to step back fromtheir traditional perspectives, decide what is in the best interests of the healthsystem overall—

This is code for saying that the provinces should abandon any hopes of autonomy and any hopes for specificity in order to fit a mould that will be cast in Ottawa. This is what this passage means.

In the preliminary report of the Romanow commission, it is already clear what direction he is headed in and what his philosophy is. We see the desire to build a uniform Canada, one that is increasingly centralized and standardized.

The preliminary report of the Romanow commission also sets out and recognizes the problem of the instability of health funding and opens the door to partial privatization of health services. It proposes a framework which assumes the standardization of health care systems in Canada and clearly tackles issues which come under the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction of Quebec.

As members know, the Government of Quebec quite rightly boycotted the proceedings of the Romanow commission because it thought it pointless. Quebec has already held its own commission to study health care and social services, the Clair commission, which tabled its report in January 2001. This report proposed tangible, specific solutions adapted to the needs of Quebec and Quebecers and it respects their health care needs.

Speaking of needs, this is an opportunity to uncover what could be seen as a bit of bad faith on the part of the federal government. Federal funding to Quebec for health care, through the Canada health and social transfer, stands at 14%. This means that for every dollar spent in Quebec today, 86 cents come from the Government of Quebec and only 14 cents come from the federal government. This contribution was slated to drop to less than 13% in 2005-06.

I hope that the minister will ask me some questions about this. I would be delighted to provide explanations and I hope that she will listen closely, as she can do.

In 2000-01, federal transfers represented only 16% of Quebec's revenues, dropping from over 28% in 1983-84.

The additional federal health transfers deposited in trust also pose many problems. The federal government boasts that it has transferred money in trust to the provinces. But it is requiring that the monies transferred be used for specific purposes. They are one-time payments and Quebec does not necessarily have the resources to hire the staff needed to use the medical equipment.

This one-shot payment in trust is not working well. This serious fiscal problem which has the Government of Quebec and, through it, all Quebec taxpayers in a stranglehold is so real that, in 2010-11, it is estimated that about 85% of Quebec's program spending will go the education, health care and social services.

What does that leave for the environment, culture, foreign affairs and recreation? When 85% of a budget goes to these basic items, it does not leave much leeway. The federal government is deliberately applying this fiscal stranglehold on the provinces.

In this two-fronted attack on Quebec's autonomy, the first front being the fiscal imbalance—and I will come back to that—and the second being the administrative centralization required by the social union agreement signed in 1999 by all provinces, except Quebec of course, and the federal government, how can the latter justify such blackmail with regard to the funding it provides, when its share of health care costs has shrunk to 13% and its share of education costs has shrunk to 8%?

Since my time is running out, I will conclude by saying that the fiscal imbalance that undermines the autonomy of the provinces and of Quebec, and this is a deliberate decision on the part of the federal government, is jeopardizing the social and economic choices of Quebecers. In the end, all the decisions could be made in Ottawa. This is the danger that Quebec is facing. This nation building process undermines the desire of Quebecers to be different, to do things their way, to have their own culture and their own identity.

The shortfall in Quebec is estimated at $50 million a week, or $2 billion a year. If this fiscal imbalance were corrected, Quebec alone could hire over 3,000 physicians and 5,000 nurses.

For the people of Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, these sums represent $24 million for the current fiscal year alone and $78 million by the end of fiscal 2004-05.

These are practical measures, and this is what the federal government should work toward instead of listening to what the Romanow commission wants, which is a uniform health care system across Canada.

[Question No. 154, June 7th, 2002]

What was the full decision-making process that led the command at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier to consider closing down entirely downhill skiing at the Castor Centre; and in regard to this: ( a ) from what budget envelope were the funds for construction and development of the infrastructures at the Castor alpine ski centre originally taken; ( b ) from what budget envelope were the funds used to operate the Centre (e.g. electricity, heating) taken; ( c ) how and when was the public, both military and civilian, consulted, and using what sampling; ( d ) what recommendations were considered to avoid the decision to close; and ( e ) at what point did the Minister of National Defence endorse the decision?

[Liberal Government, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker

The scandals are not over yet, Nor are the shuffles you can bet. The little guy from you know where Is all but tearing out his hair

In search of traitors 'mongst his men, But where to start, for then again, The Liberal Party helps its friends, And naturally the rules its bends.

It's just like PC days of old. Ten years ago, what were we told? Integrity was on the way. Imagine then our great dismay.

But tricks that worked for 40 years Are wearing thin as judgment nears And thoughts of legacies die hard When one is hoist on one's petard.

[Government Contracts, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister said that millions of dollars might have been stolen. If he can say something like this, he must surely have information.

My question is a very simple one: Who was it stolen by?

[Liberal Government, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the long list of scandals, misappropriations of funds and allegations of corruption that have been associated with the Liberal government over the past weeks is becoming very disturbing.

The public is beginning to understand the true nature of the Liberal vision, which consists in being very generous with friends of the party, by using public money, in violation of the most basic rules of sound governance.

The Liberal government, and particularly the Prime Minister, can no longer avoid the issue by downplaying the situation, and it must now account for its actions.

Public opinion polls are condemning the government for its lack of integrity, and this undermines its legitimacy to govern. The media are reporting new scandals every day. The fact that the public is fed up is apparent on the streets and particularly when listening to radio stations.

For example, last week, the Bolo award of the Bande à Gilet, on FM 93, in Quebec City, was given to the whole Liberal government for, shall we say, its achievements.

There is nothing to be proud of when receiving such a mention and, sooner or later, the government will have to listen to reason and appoint an independent public inquiry commission to look into these scandals.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is too bad, because if the member for Brandon—Souris had asked for more time, I am sure that members would have agreed. What he was saying was very interesting.

As we all know, some terrible events took place on September 11. A friend of ours, an ally, a democratic country, our neighbour to the south, was brutally attacked. Thousands of people, men, women and children, died. Innocent victims met death at the hands of barbarians, terrorists, savages who decided to attack people who had done nothing to them.

The world's reaction to these events took two forms. The first was external, to go after and destroy the very roots of terrorism. This resulted in the campaign in Afghanistan, where Canadian and other troops are now engaged. The decision was made to destroy and oust a regime which was taking in members of terrorist cells. This was accomplished.

This external approach included co-operation among various countries, including their secret services, in order to better track the various terrorist activities which might be going on worldwide. Various countries reacted internally as well.

The main challenge facing all democratic countries is that of striking an essential and vital balance between the protection of human rights and freedoms, on the one hand, and public safety, on the other.

This balance has not always been properly respected. Yesterday, as we know, Amnesty International released a report in which the well known international organization mentioned the sometimes disproportionate reactions of the various democratic countries following the events of September 11. When an organization such as Amnesty International sounds a warning bell, it is the duty of elected officials in the various countries, and that includes us, to take note.

The government's first reaction to this threat to security was Bill C-42. This bill met with tremendous criticism. As the member who spoke before me mentioned, it is very rare for Canadians and Quebecers to pay much attention to the proceedings of this House. It is unfortunate, but that is how it is. Since 1997, when I first became a member, rarely have I seen as many reactions from my constituents, as many letters, as many e-mails, as many telephone calls as I did following the introduction of Bill C-42.

Accordingly, the Bloc Quebecois echoed the public's unease and voiced its criticism in the House. The Bloc was exemplary in its constructive, tight and well-argued criticism of Bill C-42; as a result, recognizing the validity of many of the arguments put forward by my party, the government withdrew its bill. It then introduced a new version of its bill, which is the one before us today, Bill C-55.

While the Bloc Quebecois is proud of the fact that some elements were removed from Bill C-42, Bill C-55 remains a source of concern for us. We still believe that the balance between the rights and freedoms of people and public safety, which should be the basis for this debate, has not been achieved in Bill C-55.

We could give various examples, but I will limit myself because I have precious little time. I will only address two main issues. The first one is the discretion given to the Minister of National Defence regarding controlled access military zones. The bill gives him complete discretion in that regard. My colleague from Repentigny demonstrated this in a brilliant and eloquent fashion. Who can have confidence in any minister of this government, after what we have been seeing day after day and given the lack of judgment displayed repeatedly by this ministerial team?

Take for example the EI issue or the Minister of Human Resources Development and the billion dollar boondoggle. How can we have confidence in the Prime Minister, whose personal integrity is being questioned? How can we trust the Minister of Justice, who brags about having participated in fishing expeditions with acquaintances of his? How can we have confidence in the Minister of Immigration, who blatantly changes his tune, even suggesting a deliberate attempt to mislead not only the House but also Canadians?

I see the head of the minister of intergovernmental affairs shooting up, but this is the main issue. He claims to know law so well, but it must be pointed out that, in the bill, this is at the minister's discretion. However, lately, one minister after another has shown a total lack of judgment.

In a bill such as this one, which threatens rights and freedoms to such a great extent, the danger is that people who, day after day, month after month, have shown their blatant and incredible lack of judgment, will have this discretionary power.

The other problem with controlled access military zones is that the approval of the province concerned is not required. This is dangerous, all the more so as there are no checks and balances to the minister's power. If at least the province's approval were required, we could say that there are some checks and balances, but this is not the case. It is dangerous especially with regard to the “reasonably necessary” criterion regarding the size of these zones. This is a problem.

We are talking about military equipment. I come from Quebec City. Several unbelievable examples come to mind. There is the Citadel in the heart of Old Quebec City, the armoury on Grande-Allée, which is some 200 metres away from the National Assembly. Under the guise of protecting military equipment, a minister who has the necessary discretionary power could say that the National Assembly, which is central to democracy in Quebec and is one of the oldest parliaments in the world since it dates back to 1791--let us not forget that--could be included in a controlled access military zones. The size of such a zone would have been decided by a minister of this government.

It is unfortunate that I have so little time left because there is so much to criticize in this bill. We will press on and see to it that it is never passed as it stands today.

[Petitions, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition concerning rural mail carriers. We know that they often earn less than minimum wage and that they do not have the right to collective bargaining.

Therefore, I present this petition to have paragraph 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act repealed.

[Municipalities, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, following that same reasoning, 100% of children attend school, so the federal government should deal with education as well. Really now, that argument does not hold water.

Every time the federal government invades an area of provincial jurisdiction, this provokes a confrontation, delays getting the money to where it needs to go, and decreases efficiency.

So, instead of trying to go over the heads of the provinces and of Quebec, why not pay out the money to them via existing channels? That would be so simple.

[Municipalities, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in its unhealthy desire for visibility, the government is ignoring a fundamental document, one called the Constitution of Canada. If it took the trouble to read its own constitution, it would see in section 92(8) in black and white that municipal affairs are a provincial jurisdiction.

So why is the government doggedly insisting on getting into things that do not concern it? Why is it that it is constantly seeking confrontation? Why is it always trying to stir up trouble?

[Briefings or Negotiations, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and speak to Motion No. 360 introduced by the member for Provencher. I intend to keep my comments short.

Let me first remind the House of what one of the greatest statesman of the 20th century, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, once said: “Democracy is the worst system ever invented except for all the rest”. My speech will be based on that statement and divided into four parts.

First, in a democracy such as the one we live in, legitimacy rests with elected officials. These elected representatives of the people have the legitimate power to make decisions.

Second, it is up to the elected officials, who have the support of their constituents, to make decisions.

Third, to be able to make the right decisions, elected officials have to be as well informed as possible. That is totally understandable. To make the best decision possible, we need to be informed.

Fourth, the best information is first-hand information. In federal-provincial negotiations, first-hand information is what we get during briefings and negotiations. It is only appropriate that elected provincial representatives attend briefings or negotiations between federal and provincial public servants.

This is why we agree with the non-votable motion brought forward by the member for Provencher.