Lost her last election, in 2004, with 6% of the vote.
Highway Infrastructure February 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the promises made by Liberal ministers and members regarding highways during the election campaign go well beyond the moneys currently available for this purpose.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister say what percentage of the $2 billion infrastructure fund will be allocated to the construction of the highways promised by his colleagues during the election? What portion of the $2 billion will be spent on the highways?
Nuclear Fuel Waste Act February 22nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill before us today.
This is my last opportunity to deal with this very serious bill in the House. Obviously, the Bloc Quebecois cannot object to the management of nuclear waste that is stored on the site of nuclear plants in Ontario. It would be foolish. My colleague from Sherbrooke and I have asked for an appointment with the new natural resources minister to explain to him our party's objections to this bill.
The bill does no go far enough in setting guidelines to deal with the immediate problem and make further progress later on. The bill is lacking in that respect. Originally, it was based on the Seaborn report, which recommended extensive public consultations. I do not think the government travelled throughout Canada to ask Canadians for their input on this bill dealing with nuclear waste management.
It is in no way consistent with the priorities highlighted by the Seaborn report. We can say and do all we want, we cannot haul nuclear waste all over Canada while saying we are going to do this or that.
In 1991, the cost of such a facility was estimated at roughly between $9 and $13 billion for the permanent storage of nuclear waste. This was in 1991. Today, it would probably cost $20 billion to bury this kind of waste. Let us not forget that nuclear fuel waste has a half-life after being buried. Hundreds of millions of years of half-life will follow.
Nuclear fuel waste is highly radioactive and 90% of it is located in Ontario. The province opted for nuclear energy and is currently stockpiling waste on its nuclear plant sites. It is looking at burying it deep in the Canadian Shield. Let us not forget that the Canadian Shield covers 90% of Quebec.
All week long, we have been asking the Minister of the Environment to live up to his commitments under the Kyoto protocol. Does this mean he no longer wants to abide by the polluters pay principle? Should we Quebecers, who opted for hydro power, take in waste from Ontario and bury it in our province?
We account for one-quarter of the Canadian population. I am willing to manage one-quarter of Canada's waste on our territory, but not all of it. I would have liked to hear from the new Minister of Natural Resources what his stand is on this bill. Unfortunately, he has not answered my request to meet him.
This is very important. I took part in the committee work, together with my colleague the member for Sherbrooke. I want to take this opportunity to recognize him and congratulate him on his hard work and the amendments he put forward. Liberal members always attend committee in numbers for the clause-by-clause review of bills and, when we put forward amendments, all they say is no, no, no.
They do not even listen, but they say “no, no”, because that is what the parliamentary secretary, who is the spokesperson for the minister, has told them to say. We are willing to rise above political considerations on this issue, but not under just any conditions.
We asked for a real board of directors to be set up and to submit an action plan to the government, who would then consult parliamentarians, so that the governor in council would not be the only deciding authority. We asked for parliamentarians to be consulted, because we wanted a real board of directors with real responsibilities. We wanted some of the powers to be taken away from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, because that agency is overseen by the Minister of Natural Resources. We believe there is a conflict of interest, because the minister is caught on both sides of the issue.
We also agree that we have to manage our own waste in our province, but we wanted an amendment to ensure that we would stop bringing in waste from other countries. The House remembers the uproar in my area surrounding the movement of MOX from Russia and the United States. This highly radioactive waste was supposed to be burned in our area. We said, “Why should we become the dump site of the whole world?” Let us manage our own waste and then, if we develop a new waste management technique, we will be more than glad to share it with other countries.
However, the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources said no, once again. It had strict orders to follow. Let us not forget that, in 1998, the Prime Minister of Canada had agreed to help Russia get rid of its nuclear waste. He had made an offer, but I do not think he had consulted with Canadians beforehand.
I think of our children and grandchildren. I do not wish to see Canada, let alone Quebec—one has to be a bit chauvinistic in life; after all, I am defending the interests of Quebec in this House—become the dump of the world. Yet, the Liberals would not listen to people with common sense who said they wanted to deal with their own waste and find a solution together. This is not, however, the way Liberals intend to go. They prefer to use the back door approach.
I am fed up with this government, which always slips major issues in through the back door instead of dealing with them in the open, in particular in the case of environment and our future. The actions we take today will have repercussions on our future. In 10 or 15 years from now, our children and grandchildren will say to us “You could have raised the issue, you could have done something then, but you only went half-way”.
We had a great opportunity to do so, to go the whole nine yards and to say that Canada as a country assumes its responsibilities but does not have to assume other countries' responsibilities. But they chose to ignore the good arguments of the opposition, those from the Alliance, the NDP as well as the Coalition. We were all gagged, which is unfortunate. The Bloc Quebecois will never support such a bill.
I do not like half-measures, half- bills, half-consequences or half-alternatives. We must take clear means, choose a clear way and drastic solutions to eliminate waste, though we should avoid doing so at the expense of future generations. This is the last opportunity I have to call upon the Minister of Natural Resources. It is still time to stop and say, “We will once more look at the bill and listen to the opposition”.
I wish to thank the people from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean who listened when I appealed to them about MOX. They all got involved with me. They stood behind their member of parliament and said, “We refuse to have that in our area.” And we did not.
He would have had the support of people, had he asked them what they wanted. Unfortunately, he continues to do what this government does, that is act as if he is the only one to know the truth. I do not believe we can expect anything from them, but we will watch them and follow closely what they are doing.
Highway Infrastructure February 22nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was in quite a hurry to make announcements during the last election campaign. Now he is unable to deliver the goods.
The public has only one question for the parliamentary secretary: when will they see the money for highway 175, and for all the other Liberal promises?
Highway Infrastructure February 22nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the federal Minister of Transport recognized only one priority, highway 30, whereas Quebec is confirming that the money is already on the table to complete all of the projects.
During the last election campaign, however, other promises were made, including the one in connection with highway 75, made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
What does the parliamentary secretary have to say to the people of Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean who are listening today and who are waiting to hear that he will deliver on his election promises?
Highway Infrastructure February 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, right now, no one in the government can satisfactorily explain how the many promises made by the Liberal members could be kept. Nobody can perform miracles.
There are two possible conclusions: either the government will postpone or eliminate certain projects, and we would like to know which ones, or new money will be added to the existing envelope, and we would like to know how much and when.
Highway Infrastructure February 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, the Minister of Transport has confirmed that there is $108 million in funding available to Quebec over the next four years for highways.
But, for highway 30, the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry promised much more than $108 million. For highway 175, the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord promised much more than $108 million. The member for Madawaska--Restigouche announced $108 million for highway 185.
How does the Minister of Transport explain that he thinks he can keep the promises made by his colleagues, when the promises in question have nothing to do with the money available?
Highway Infrastructure February 20th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Minister of Justice said that the commitments made by his colleagues to improve Quebec's highways would be respected.
Since the Minister of Justice has given his word, why does the Deputy Prime Minister not sign the memoranda of agreement submitted by the government of Quebec for highways 175, 185, 30, 35 and 50 immediately?
He should stop evading the question and sign.
Supply February 19th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my words of the other day. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was in the House when I said I would not stoop to his level.
My region is important. Everything that affects my region is important. I am prepared to shake hands with anyone who will work on behalf of my region.
In my region, they are the ones responsible for there not being the necessary money for the health care system. In order to put the health system back in order, let them put the money that is ours on the table, in all the fields that will have beneficial economic effects for my region. That is the only response I can give the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
Supply February 19th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to reply to the three questions put by my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
Yes, health is the top priority in Quebec. It should also be this government's priority. Even if you are a millionaire, when you have health problems, you feel defeated and you would like to recover your health at any price. Therefore, I do think it is important to invest generously in health care and in prevention measures to maintain health.
I also answer yes to the question concerning the Romanow commission. Investing in this commission is useless. In my region, I often meet the people from the Régie régionale de la santé. Studies have been made. The Quebec government carried out studies. There was the Clair commission. The Quebec government said it would implement the commission's recommendations. We are putting all that forward. This is a rehashed commission. The government could invest this considerable amount of money in health; instead, it uses it to please a friend of the party. Mr. Romanow must certainly be a close friend of the Liberal Party, and that party always returns favours.
We have gone beyond that. We have reached a point where what we say is that, for health, the money owed to the provinces has to be given back to them. The federal government has to put money on the table so that provinces can finally have what they need to provide services to the population.
The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has asked me a question regarding my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I hope that he is working in the same direction as I am, because I am working for the well-being of my region. I certainly hope that he is doing the same thing, because there cannot be too many people working for the regions.
It is a known fact that this government does not know the regions, for example the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. For the government, the regions are Montreal, Quebec City, the maritimes, Ontario and Western Canada. As far as I am concerned, my region is the nicest region in the whole of Quebec and I would even say of Canada. I hope that the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is doing the same thing as I am; I hope that he is putting all his energy into convincing the federal government to give $1 billion back to Quebec so that the health system will work properly and meet the needs of those who are ill.
Supply February 19th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the motion introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I want to congratulate him for taking this initiative. Here in Canada, it is time we knew what is really going on.
This motion reads:
That this House condemn the government for withdrawing from health-care funding, for no longer shouldering more than 14% of the costs of health care, and for attempting to invade provincial areas of jurisdiction by using the preliminary report by the Romanow Commission to impose its own vision of health care.
In the Bloc Quebecois, I am the critic for regional issues. I am very proud to tell you what this government is doing with respect to our regions. I want to take this opportunity to confound those who are using double speak and travelling throughout the regions of Quebec, trying to make us believe in the Bogey Man.
The facts are there. Since 1994, the Liberal government has cut $6.3 billion in provincial transfer payments for health, education and social programs. Of this amount, Quebec has suffered a cut of almost $2 billion, including $1 billion for health alone.
It is because of these cuts that the federal government was able to accumulate enormous budget surpluses. It is not thanks to the accounting abilities of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Flip-flop. It is easy to manage a bank when you only accumulate deposits without providing any financing.
Quebec is not the only province that is demanding to be reimbursed. All the provinces are united on this. Indeed, at a provincial health ministers' meeting in 2000, they had agreed to ask the federal government to increase its transfers to the provinces by 5%.
In August 1998, provincial premiers demanded that the federal government reimburse payment transfers taken since 1994. They demanded $6.3 billion from the federal government. Of this amount, Quebec's share is $1.8 billion, including $1 billion for health alone.
Even Jean Charest, the current leader of the Liberal opposition in Quebec City, agrees with Quebec's request. Here is what he said on May 7, 1997:
Forget about Lucien Bouchard and Jean Rochon. The person really responsible for the hospital closures and the deterioration in the health care system is the leader of the federal Liberal Party. Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Harris, Mr. Filmon, Mr. Klein, and all the other premiers, are forced to manage unilateral cuts.
I hope that I will not have to get out my dictionary to explain the meaning of the word unilateral. I think that those listening know what it means. I hope that the government does. It is fairly clear.
It is therefore rather pathetic to note that, on September 25, 1993, the Prime Minister of Canada said, and I quote “Our program does not include any plan to cut payments to individuals or provinces, it is clear and it is in writing”. He was talking about health. He said “Just like for the GST”. Need I say more?
One year later, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Flip-flop, had this to say “The next federal budget will contain deep cuts in funding to the provinces for health, social assistance and education”. Talk about talking out of both sides of one's mouth and quickly forgetting election promises. Less than one year later, the Minister of Finance said the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister had said. This does not surprise me. In the House, they do the same. It is a bit like the Tower of Babel.
Quebec is therefore out of $1 billion for health care. I would like to say a word of the impact on Quebec and its regions. This cut represents 20% of the costs of all Quebec hospitals, the closure of half the hospitals in the Montreal area, the hospitalization costs of 370,000 patients, the payroll of half the nurses in Quebec, the cost of all CLSCs or twice the cost of all services for young people. That is the impact of this cut. And they have the gall to say that we have lots of money, that we are rich. The federal government does not have to provide services. We do.
The federal government passes a bill, sets principles, and we have to obey. It does not have to take responsibility. We have to abide by the principles and spend the money, but it does not care about the grassroots. Our listeners should know—I hope the government does—that the regional board, or Régie régionale, in my area of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean has released reports showing that the number of people who will soon retire is increasing.
Their numbers keep going up. We know that when we get older, there are health problems and special needs, and health care gets more expensive. This is the impact of a longer life, and we cannot help it. There is a minor ailment one day, and another one the next. But we need resources to provide care to those with health problems.
I will give a list to show what the $1 billion cut by this government could allow us to do in my own region, and more precisely at the Jonquière hospital. My own area, which represents 3.8% of the population of Quebec, receives $360 million from the Government of Quebec to manage the health care system. Now, 3.8% of $1 billion represents an extra $38 million. For example, this amount would allow us to double the budget of the Jonquière hospital, which is between $34 million and $35 million. This gives an idea of how much more services we could provide to the people in my region.
Here are other figures. The Mauricie—Centre du Québec represents 6.2% of the population of Quebec. Now, 6.2 per cent of $1 billion equals $62 million more for hospitals, local community service centres and child and youth centres in that area. These are only examples, but the figures are realistic. They are based on scales, which are presently on the table. This is what is happening at home and this is why people talk about prophets of doom. Federal Liberals or provincial Liberals from Quebec travel throughout the regions, saying “It is your fault if there are cuts in health care and if the system is not well organized”. People in my region and throughout Quebec will not be fooled by those who talk from both sides of their mouth. They are the ones to blame.
They should give us back money they took from us. Let us not forget that ultimately there is only one taxpayer. They should give us back the funds they had promised to give but have cut since 1993. They should give us back the missing $1 billion and we will no longer have problems. Finally, this government will give regions the money they are owned.
They must finally see the light and recognize that health is important. I believe that we no longer have the choice: health is an important thing.