Lost his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Supply December 5th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we are talking about the same thing. Mr. Bouchard signed the health agreement, the agreement in place since September 2000, in which the Government of Canada provided $21.2 billion to be used for medical equipment and for home care and primary care.
Thus, as far as I know, all the premiers of Canada signed the agreement. I am not making this up. There is a document with the signatures.
Supply December 5th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for both of his questions.
In politics, it is unusual to give very direct answers, but I will give one now. Yes, there is health legislation that provides a Canadian framework where the five basic principles regarding health care that all of the provinces must respect are laid out. Everyone agrees on this, including the provinces.
We all acknowledge, and the Minister of Health has also said, that it is the provinces' responsibility and jurisdiction to administer the health care system, based on the needs of each of the provinces. There is no debate on this. However, the motion moved here needs to recognize some things.
In response to his second question, if I had been an MNA, I would have at least asked my leader not to support a motion with this wording.
There is constant talk of unconditional transfer. Yet there are many examples of highly successful federal-provincial negotiations. Take, for example, the immigration agreement between Quebec and the Government of Canada. There were negotiations, an agreement, fund transfers. There was a manpower training agreement for a total of $600 million annually, with negotiations and an agreement. Areas of jurisdiction were respected.
Hon. members need to recall the latest agreement, from September 2000, when Mr. Bouchard, the Premier of Quebec at the time, negotiated, signed on and accepted funds—some of which were listed just now—for primary care services and medical equipment purchases. There was an agreement. Quebec was told there was money available and asked “Do you want some?”. They said yes, and signed the agreement.
Are you admitting in the resolution that Quebec's premier is weak for not wanting to negotiate? You are saying “Transfer the money to us without conditions” but that is not how things are done. The Government of Canada is not a bank. It does not give out money.
There is agreement on major principles and then together we sign an agreement. We share responsibilities and allocate the money according to the frameworks on which agreement has been reached.
Mr. Bouchard never made demands along the lines of “Transfer the money to us without any conditions”. What he said was “I am a negotiator and I am going to sit down at the table and we will negotiate”. They reached an agreement and it was signed, for a total of $21.2 billion. That is not peanuts, it is a considerable amount.
I am convinced that the Government of Quebec will take part in this conference. I am convinced that all provinces and the Government of Canada are gong to reach an agreement.
Supply December 5th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth.
The health care system, which has helped make Canada one of the best countries in the world, must be revamped to accommodate the changing needs of Canadians and new health technologies.
In recent months, people from each province appeared before the Romanow commission. Many people attended the hearings, responded to the questions posed by the commission and participated in the forums organized by members of this House on the subject. They told us that they want to maintain the principle of a publicly funded system, and that all levels of governments need to act quickly to correct the problems identified and strengthen the positive aspects of the current public health care system.
They also stressed the importance of maintaining a universal health care system where access to care is based on need rather than on ability to pay. The Government of Canada shares these values and intends to defend them.
Individuals and groups appearing before the Clair commission, as before the Romanow commission, demonstrated a strong attachment to the values of social solidarity and equality, as well as to the the main principles of access, universality and free care that guided the development of our health care system.
In its report, the Clair commission recommended that all levels of government invest rapidly in sectors they considered priorities: frontline services, or primary care, home care, and updating the network in technological terms.
The Romanow commission reached these same conclusions, and also recommended significant investments in those sectors.
In the past few days, we have realized that the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada has correctly identified needs, and this has been validated by the main health care stakeholders and by political decision makers.
To meet these needs, Commissioner Romanow acknowledged that larger investments would be needed, above and beyond the $21.2 billion in additional health care funding announced in September 2000.
I would like to come back to the priorities mentioned earlier and make a few brief comments about primary care.
The prime concern of our fellow citizens is still access to frontline care, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, wherever they live. Let us take, for instance, the family physician groups recently created in Quebec, as recommended by the Clair commission. These groups, made up of a dozen physicians working closely with nurses and other health and social services professionals, should help all Quebeckers have access to services and get the care they need, at all times.
This model should also help us ease the pressure on the emergency rooms and better prevent and detect health and social problems.
The money transferred to the provinces under the Health Transition Fund for Primary Care, set up pursuant to the agreement reached by the first ministers in September 2000, supports the development of such groups. The Government of Canada transferred around $133 million to Quebec to undertake the reforms identified by Quebeckers.
The family physician groups help ensure continuity of patient care, prevent diseases and injuries, and promote health, detection and early intervention, all of which are recommended in the Romanow report.
As for home care, this area has been identified as a priority by Quebec as well as by the other Canadian provinces. Moreover, considering the aging population and the fact that 20% of all older people have disabilities and need help in their daily activities, it is becoming urgent to take action, to provide home care for these people, and to provide the necessary support to their family and friends, so that these people can remain in their own environment for as long as possible.
Canadians tend to want to stay at home until the very end. The recommendation made in the Romanow report to support this priority should be explored.
Quebec, like the other provinces, is affected by a shortage of medical staff. The other major problem regarding human resources in the health sector is retaining medical staff in rural and remote areas.
An increase in the number of health professionals, a better distribution of staff, and an adjustment to the pay system are required. These recommendations were made by both the Romanow and Clair commissions.
Back in September 2000, the first ministers of Canada agreed to invest in medical equipment and in the health infrastructure. Quebec benefited from this and was in fact the first province to buy new equipment, partly with the $239 million provided by the federal government through the medical equipment fund.
New investments in diagnostic services, as recommended by Mr. Romanow, could improve access to these services and help reduce delays for treatment. This objective is shared by all the provinces.
Another element related to health technologies is undoubtedly the computerization of patients' files. In addition to ensuring the patients' security, these files will guarantee the best possible treatment. The Romanow and Clair commissions recognized the positive effect that such an investment could have in the long term. Computer files reduce the need to redo the same examinations when a patient is referred to another doctor.
Finally, everyone agrees that it is difficult to have an effective health care system without turning to advanced technologies that ensure, among other things, quicker and more accurate diagnosis, and without finding ways to effectively reach rural and remote populations, through projects such as telehealth.
All levels of government are unanimous in saying that they are accountable to the people they serve. Canadians expect such transparency.
In September 2000, the first ministers pledged to develop a series of performance indicators with respect to the health care system—this is nothing new—and the health of the population, all in the interests of transparency.
Quebec played a leadership role on the committee responsible for developing these indicators. The first comparative report resulting from this exercise helped identify the strengths and weaknesses of the various health care systems throughout Canada and will be used to put in place the required corrective measures.
All the provinces and territories agree with the five principles currently set out in the Canada Health Act, namely accessibility, universality, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration.
These principles guided the development of provincial legislation regarding public health care. Each province and each territory has reviewed and is in the process of improving health care. More than ever, our country is animated by a high level of energy that we must tap into in order to create a sound health care system that is driven by needs rather than by the ability to pay.
Tomorrow, December 6, all the health ministers at the federal, provincial and territorial levels will meet to map out the broad lines of the plan to renew the health care system. It will be the first of these meetings. This discussion will certainly reflect the federal government's commitment with regard to the future of Canada's health care system and the delivery of high quality health care. The plan will be based on the appropriate use of public funds because, to maintain a high quality health care system, we must ensure that it will deliver good results at an affordable cost. That is one of the commitments made by our government.
Early in 2003, first ministers will meet to discuss Mr. Romanow's recommendations and to agree on an overall plan for modernizing the health care system in order to ensure its sustainability.
Supply December 5th, 2002
Madam Speaker, the hon. member made a very good speech. He referred to the Quebec government's health plan, in which they talk about having all primary care services, CLSCs, open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He also referred to home care, which is one of the issues stressed by the Clair commission, and for which $133 million were invested.
Does the hon. member think that the recommendations made in the Romanow report are fully and totally in line with those of the Clair commission, which looked at primary care services, home care and the updating of the technology used?
Also, could the hon. member tell the House if the $133 million amount that was recently announced in the presence of general practitioners for home care comes from a primary care health transition fund, which was established under the September 2000 agreement with the premiers, and which is exclusively funded by the Government of Canada?
Kyoto Protocol December 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, indeed, each country can decide to develop a plan to address pollution immediately. Overall, when the Government of Quebec decided to propose formulas to raise the awareness of businesses and homeowners about energy savings, it used the incentive approach. It did not wait for the Kyoto protocol.
The hon. member indicates that we could demand more fuel-efficient cars tomorrow. But this assumes readjustments on the part of the auto industry, should it be decided to take that route, as proposed by the Minister of the Environment. So a period of one year, or two, three, four or five years would be required. That is the way it is; things have to be announced in order for people to start to prepare. We cannot just do it out of the blue.
Kyoto Protocol December 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, we need to take a wider outlook than that. This is an issue that concerns all of Canada.
I get the impression, and it may be more than just an impression, that we need a collective effort. It is true that great things have been achieved in Quebec. That is fine. This will be an example for other regions in Canada.
But I think that we should all do our share. More privileged regions should be ready to help those who are less so. We should also consider the fact that the types of industries differ from one region to the next.
The important thing is to find a balanced solution that will benefit everybody, but that will apply at a pace that can vary, provided the 10 year timeframe is respected.
We have until 2012 to reach our goal, and that leaves us 10 years. We should stop being parochial and say: We have done this or that, and it is enough. Why are we being asked to do even more? We should be more open than this to the whole country. We should participate. Quebec needs to participate in the development of a better plan and help other regions implement an effective plan.
Kyoto Protocol December 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I would be a bit embarrassed, as the member for an riding like Beauharnois—Salaberry, if I did not speak to this issue that is so important. In fact, I represent an area that has suffered enormously from the senseless, even savage, development that took place there in the thirties and forties. Today, this area has a great deal of catching up to do in terms of the environment. At the time, many industries settled there, producing chemicals, aluminum, steel and so on. People were not really concerned about the environment back then.
Today, we have to live with the consequences, as they say, and find solutions to clean up the environment and make it liveable for everyone.
We also need to attract people to our area, in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, which is surrounded by water. Mr. Speaker, you know my area because my riding is close to yours, on the other shore of the St. Lawrence. We know that the St. Lawrence is one of the great bodies of water that was used in Canada's industrial development, from the Great Lakes all the way downstream. At the time, people did not think that the impact would be so bad in the medium and long term.
Today, we are indeed talking about a pact, a treaty, an international movement. If we do not do this today, and if we put off signing the Kyoto protocol, that too will have a negative impact in the medium and long term. I feel like every year that passes without us signing the agreement will jeopardize, in the medium and long term, the quality of the environment of our planet, our country, and I would add, my area.
That is why I support the government's decision to ratify Kyoto before the end of the year. We will support the Prime Minister on this and all government members agree with the need to ratify Kyoto.
Of course, the opponents to Kyoto always come back to the economic impact of the protocol. Instead of focusing only on the number of jobs that could be lost if we ratify Kyoto, we should try to figure out how many jobs Kyoto could create in Canada. When we want to develop a green industry, we always feel like it will not turn out a profit, that jobs will be lost and other countries will benefit from our failure.
I totally disagree. We know of a lot of businesses that have decided to take such an opportunity to modernize their operations and adopt new technologies. Nowadays, we have companies that easily meet the emission standards not only in Quebec but throughout the country.
Some have chosen the narrow-minded approach, because they want the debate to deal only with the jobs we might lose. They forget to think about the mid to long term impact the accord could have on our economy.
For instance, we have been having a raging debate in the last week about the famous Romanow report that recommends new money for health care. Why is every region in Canada urging the federal government to step in and reinvest in health care?
If I take the case of Quebec, it used to have a health budget of $8 billion. Today, the budget has doubled. It is the same for all provinces. There is a problem. We are talking about an aging population, but this is not the only issue.
We have greenhouse gas emissions and CO
2
emissions in the air. What is their impact on health? We could save on health costs in each of those regions in Canada and have a healthier population.
Let us take the case of agriculture. All my colleagues who spoke during this debate and all those who favour a quality environment referred to the impact on agriculture.
Consider the case of forests. They represent an extraordinary wealth. Rather than considering a sensible development of the forestry industry, they stubbornly continue to violate forests. In the Amazon and elsewhere in Brazil, how many millions of acres of forest have been ruthlessly stripped of all trees, without any consideration for the environment?
In my own area, there could be a happy union between agriculture and forestry. Because of a problem with hog production, hog farmers act in an anarchic way and cut trees down in order to have more land where they can spread pig slurry. They do not consider the impact tree cutting can have on the environment.
If we analyzed every positive impact, we would see that in terms of employment there would be a medium and long term benefit.
There is another important aspect that has to be mentioned. Businesses looking for a place to locate often do a quality assessment of the place. On the environmental level, this quality has a major impact on the business siting decision.
I wanted to talk more about transportation this afternoon. I always come back to my own area and the greater Montreal area—the greater Toronto surely has to deal with the same problem—namely the impact of trucking on air quality in areas around major urban centres.
The plan proposes some quite extraordinary things. We know that CO
2
emissions from cars and trucks represent 25% of that pollution. This is why it is important for municipalities and regions to focus on reducing trucking and favouring public transportation more.
In concluding, I would like to ask a question to all those who are in the House. What are we waiting for? What are the people who currently oppose ratification of the Kyoto protocol waiting for? Are they waiting for a time when there is not a single fish in our waters, not a single tree on our land, not a single bird in the air? What are we waiting for?
The day we find ourselves in that situation, we will have a deprived planet. Perhaps people will continue to extract oil from the ground or coal from the mines but, in the end, we will no longer have any grass, we will have nothing left. This can happen quite rapidly.
This is a matter of social conscience. I believe that people should think about this. When the plan is implemented, we will be able to sit down together and think, to find the right solution.
Marguerite Maillet November 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Acadian author Marguerite Maillet will receive the title of Officer of the Order of Canada from Canada's Governor General. At the same ceremony, 30 Canadians will be invested as Companions, Officers or Members of the Order of Canada.
Madame Maillet is a major Canadian literary figure. Her work is known throughout the Americas and Europe. She is a source of inspiration for Acadia and for Canada.
She has long been involved in promoting literature through research and teaching as well. She is also the co-founder of Bouton d'or d'Acadie, a publisher of children's literature in French, English and Mi’kmaq.
My sincere congratulations to Marguerite Maillet on this richly deserved honour, as well as to all the others who will be honoured at the same investiture.
The Grey Cup November 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy and proud to rise today to pay tribute in the House to the exciting show we were given last night, during the Grey Cup match in Edmonton.
In a dramatic ending in the final quarter, the Montreal Alouettes defeated the Edmonton Eskimos 25 to 16, to win the Canadian football championship. The Grey Cup returns to Montreal for the first time in 25 years.
I would like to congratulate all of the Alouette players for their hard work and determination and we would also like to thank the Eskimos for the thrilling final game that they provided. Kudos to Pat Woodcock in particular, of the Alouettes—born in Kanata, Ontario—for having caught a 99-yard pass, thereby breaking the record for the longest pass in the history of the cup and leading his team to victory.
The Alouettes will be landing at Dorval this afternoon, and a parade in the streets of Montreal has been planned for Wednesday. Let us give them the welcome they truly deserve.
Supply October 29th, 2002
Shut up, I am talking. How can they use a system every day and then say that it is not valid? Earlier, the member talked about the Immigration and Refugee Board. All those who want to be appointed to the board must go through a process. There is a written exam as well as an oral exam.
These appointments are not made casually. Committees can invite practically any government appointee to question them.