Luc Harvey

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

First of all, to determine whether or not wait times have improved, a benchmark is needed. That is the first thing we had to work on. You must also be able to quantify results. Are wait times decreasing or increasing? Are we making any progress?

When I worked in Africa, I liked the expression that said that change did not mean there was progress. I do not know if the Bloc Québécois is after progress or just change. Nevertheless, our objective is to determine if we are making progress. If we are, we need a benchmark to assess if we have made a change or if we are truly making progress.

The objective is to quantify the progress made. I do not think that quantifying the amount of progress infringes on a provincial jurisdiction. I would like to point out, and I will repeat for the benefit of my Bloc Québécois colleague, that the federal government—my government—has just announced $348 million in funding for health research, including that on wait times. In addition, another $260 million has been invested in the fight against cancer. This funding is not strictly for Quebec, or Ontario, or Canada, but is for all the provinces in Canada, in order to make progress in this matter.

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

I never said anything to the contrary. There is no problem. I agree with my colleague.

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois was listening because, on several occasions, we mentioned and I talked about consultations and meetings with the various health ministers in Canada, including the Quebec health minister.

I also talked about a benchmark, specifically, is the situation getting worse or is it getting better? This work has never been done. To ensure that the promise, which was to reduce wait times, is measurable and quantifiable, Canada needs a benchmark. This is somewhat similar to the Kyoto protocol referring to the year 1990. We therefore have a figure to refer to for wait times.

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today I find it ironic to talk about wait times in health care because what we are doing, in fact, is taking stock of the 13 years the Liberals were in power. Once again, it is somewhat like the environment file where they said they were working on it, but in the end there was no result and nothing happened. We are in a situation where the result is 35% worse than they had hoped it would be when they signed the Kyoto protocol.

Today we have before us a motion from the Liberals to force us into action on a promise we made during the election campaign. We made promises that we have kept. Nonetheless, I would also like to point out that it is not enough to spend money and to make promises; we also have to respect the jurisdictions.

We all know full well that health is a provincial jurisdiction. We are working together with all the provinces in order to achieve a positive result and to improve wait times.

The Liberals did not manage to do anything in 13 years. Today, when we have been in power for less than a year, we have receive a motion asking us, somewhat maliciously, to play bad politics with an issue on which ourMinister of Health is already working very hard in order to resolve the problem and meet with provincial representatives.

We also have research. This research suggests that we currently have more effective treatments, but we also have an aging population. It is not enough to inject funding in order to try to reduce wait times. We also need to have healthy management, something the Liberals still have not managed to prove.

I would like to talk about a document that is before me. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the provinces and territories want to use federal research funding to accelerate data collection in order to establish benchmarks, as far as wait times are concerned, to provide Canadians with acceptable waiting periods for major operations.

What does that mean? Before we say that we have to reduce wait times, we need to know what is acceptable and feasible. We know that there is a time lag between the moment we receive a diagnosis and the treatment of a disease such as cancer. Sometimes, it is a physiological disease such as a joint problem. Before a joint is replaced, other treatments may be provided to delay the operation or simply alleviate the joint problem.

Recently, the federal government announced $348,000 in funding for health research projects, including research into wait times.

I am pleased to say that last week the Prime Minister also announced $260 million in funding to expand the Canadian strategy for cancer control. Among other initiatives, the strategy will support and facilitate cancer research in Canada.

The hard truth is that the automation of health care administration lags nearly 20 years behind other sectors. To correct that, we are using Canada Health Infoway funds to reduce wait times by implementing electronic patient records, centralized databases and telehealth services.

There is also improved cooperation among the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

The federal government recognizes that federal-provincial-territorial cooperation is essential in order to reduce wait times and establish wait time guarantees for patients. Over the summer, the Minister of Health held talks with his provincial and territorial counterparts in order to hear their views on the existing possibilities and challenges for patient wait time reductions.

Our government hopes to continue working with the provinces and the territories in order to achieve the results desired, and most definitely deserved, by Canadians.

Improved training of human resources in the health field and their retention are essential to wait time reductions and improved access to health care. Canada's new government is investing in human resources in the health field in order to improve collaboration among various health care professionals, contribute to the recruitment of highly qualified health care providers, and retain health care professionals who have a great deal of knowledge and experience.

One example is our program to increase recruitment among health care professionals with foreign credentials who are prepared to work in Canada. This program will enable an additional 1,000 physicians, 800 nurses and 500 health professionals to join our health system within five years.

This is an important component. We cannot pull health care specialists out of thin air. We are talking about five years from now because we cannot entrust the lives of Canadians to unqualified individuals for the sole purpose of shortening wait times. We must assess the risks and consequences and the capabilities of the individuals who will help shorten these wait times.

This will all be carried out responsibly. This entails implementing measures for assessment and supervision, to ensure that the programs work effectively and efficiently, something the Liberals were not used to doing.

Benchmarks are the first component of wait time guarantees for patients. They represent the appropriate wait times for medical procedures based on clinical data.

In 2005, Canada announced its first set of 10 benchmarks based on solid evidence for acceptable wait times for the following procedures: bypass surgery, cancer screening and radiation treatment, hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery.

These benchmarks enable us to measure wait times to determine which parts of our health care system we need to focus on and which ones need improvement.

Recently, the author of an Ontario Medical Association study conducted last June stated that some wait times were getting shorter but others were not. In response to that, we can say that for the first time, we have benchmarks that enable us to measure certain elements. We are measuring progress in the system, so now we know what we have to focus on. This is a first.

When the first ministers met in October 2005, all governments confirmed that, as more data become available for the five priority sectors, additional benchmarks would be set in the health care continuum. We are committed to working with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research across the country.

In conclusion, reducing wait times is a process, not a one-time event. We may not have attained perfection in one day, but that does not mean we are not making progress. We have to start somewhere, and that means breaking new ground.

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the translation service may have missed a few words in the question. However, I will try to answer.

For me, the words “Quebec nation” mean something a little different from what is usually meant in Quebec.

I am married to a woman who immigrated to Canada. She was originally from St. Lucia in the Caribbean. She was raised in English in Ontario. I therefore married an immigrant Ontarian. We have four children.

I believe that the Quebec nation is more inclusive than exclusive. Earlier I quoted Mr. Laurier. I have always been proud to be a Canadian, even more so when I travel abroad. The work we have done over the last 100 years summarizes the history of Canada very well. Its national anthem is an example. Canada has always had values that should be universal, such as integration, a welcoming attitude and generosity toward others. These are values that are shared by Canadians and Quebeckers.

As I was saying, I am proud to be a Canadian, even more so when I am abroad. My family is Canadian first, then Quebecker. We are Quebeckers though.

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Having visited the country of origin of my hon. colleague from the Bloc, I was talking about relations that can be difficult. I know that in his country of origin there are nearly 60 different nations, tribes or ethnic groups—whatever they are called—that live together in the same country.

Historically, the borders of this country have changed over the years because Cameroon has not always been exactly what it is today. To define an internal crisis or war in a way that is acceptable to the House, I would say that it is a crisis caused by a virus, a sickness, a senseless crisis that people take pleasure in perpetuating. In my view, it is something of this kind, generally speaking.

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will share my time with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

To begin, I would like to read a quotation:

The waters of the Ottawa River unite with those of the Great Lakes to join with the waters of the St. Lawrence. Yet, though they unite, they do not blend; rather, they follow their parallel paths, easily distinguishable one from the other. Nevertheless, they form a single current flowing between the same banks, the powerful St. Lawrence, steadily making their way toward an ocean that carries much of our trade. This is a perfect metaphor for who we are.

These words were spoken 100 years ago by Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier.

I found these words very inspiring because, from the beginning, he talked about two currents, two of our nation's founders that followed the same path, working together and going in the same direction but maintaining their distinct character.

Over the past few years, I have travelled a lot. I carried a Canadian passport that I was proud to show. Yes, I was a Quebecker, but I was Canadian. Every time I showed my passport, I was treated with respect and dignity, but I also felt the responsibility that I bear, as a Canadian and as a Quebecker, to be the best possible representative of what it means to be Canadian.

I would also like to say that, contrary to what the Bloc Québécois representatives have tried to show, Quebeckers are not victims. We are in fact partners, pulling together for Canada to achieve progress.

In recent years, I recall a famous prime minister who said that Canada was “the best country in the world”. Since the advent of the Bloc Québécois and the internal upsets we have had, we have lost the title of best country in the world. This provides confirmation of the idea that we have to work as a team. When everyone works in unison so that a country can progress economically or socially or in terms of security, failure is impossible. We have always done things together.

I hear my Bloc Québécois colleagues laughing. They may well laugh, because so far they have changed their minds three times in a single week. It can be easy to change one’s mind when one comes from the Bloc Québécois because ultimately they have no direction, other than the duty to cause problems. They are hoping to create arguments, but there will not be any.

I would also like to quote something else. This is a passage from an article by Mr. Pratte in La Presse, written on November 25, 2006. I found it quite amusing. He said:

That is why Quebeckers must not allow the sovereignists to set the standard for the success of Canadian federalism. When it comes to that, they have zero credibility, because whatever gains are made by Quebec it will never be enough for them.

What a fine quotation.

I am pleased, because that comes neither from me nor from the Prime Minister, nor the Conservative Party. It comes from an independent journalist who has raised this question. I am pleased to repeat it for you here in the House. Thank you, Mr. Pratte.

In recent days we have solved a number of problems, whether we are talking about UNESCO, intergovernmental relations or an attempt to solve the problems that arise in respect of the areas under each province’s and each government’s jurisdiction. I am proud to have participated in this.

I heard my Bloc Québécois colleague saying that we were Quebeckers going after Quebeckers. We are not going after other Quebeckers; we are simply trying to achieve progress in this country without constantly arguing; we are trying to achieve progress in this country and not simply to ask questions; we are trying to achieve progress in this country rather than trying to destroy it.

I am sincerely proud to be Canadian and to speak in this House today for Canada, but as a Quebecker.

We are also talking about respect and the fact that the Prime Minister, together with the Liberal Party and the NDP, is reaching out to Quebeckers. I am pleased that, despite everything, the Bloc Québécois decided to support this motion. What more is there to say? I am pleased that we can now count this as another issue resolved, while we wait, of course, for the Bloc Québécois to raise the next issue, which could be the fiscal imbalance. However, given that that issue will also soon be resolved, specifically, in the next budget, we will not have much left to say. I heard my colleague the Minister of Labour say earlier that the Bloc Québécois will no longer have any purpose in this House. I was so pleased to hear him say that, because I share the same view. When it comes to false representations, the Bloc Québécois are the masters.

I found another quotation from Mr. Pratte interesting:

As they do every time Quebec makes progress in the Canadian federation, the indépendantistes did not waste any time before upping the ante, hoping to provoke new crises that might further their cause. In the past, they cited the exploitation of French Canadians and linguistic insecurity. When those problems were resolved, they moved on to the federal government's debt. When Ottawa pulled through that one, it was immigration, skills training, parental leave, UNESCO—

All of these impasses have now been resolved and overcome. Soon there will be nothing left to say to my Bloc Québécois friends, except for hello. We must certainly not allow them to tell us how to correct the fiscal imbalance.

In closing, I am proud to be Canadian. I am proud to be a Quebecker. I have always known who I am and we will pass a motion here today that finally recognizes that I am part of a nation. I am pleased. I am proud to be taking part in this historic moment.

[Laval University's Rouge et Or, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I mention today the Laval University's Rouge et Or football team victory on Saturday.

I would like to congratulate all the players and the coaching staff led by Glen Constantin, who contributed to their victory, and especially the players who will not be returning next year.

These players include pass receiver Nicolas Bisaillon, who is completing his degree in psychology, and defensive halfback Alexandre Vendette, who is completing his masters' in administration.

Laval University played the Saskatchewan Huskies in the prestigious Vanier Cup. Eastern and western Canada both have excellent university football programs.

The Vanier Cup is the Canadian university football championship and this is the fourth title for the Rouge et Or since 1999. Such success would not be possible without the exceptional support of Mr. Jacques Tanguay.

This victory is a great source of pride for all residents of Louis-Hébert and the greater Quebec City area.

We sympathize with our friends from Saskatchewan.

[Taxation, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, some people talk about social justice, and some make it fiscally possible.

Under our government's first budget, Canadians have enjoyed a decrease in the lowest tax rate. For the riding of Louis-Hébert, this means that 1,243 people are now tax exempt.

Seniors will soon benefit from new tax measures. They will be entitled to a higher tax credit because of age and pension income splitting. These measures will affect nearly 16,000 retirees in my riding.

By reducing the tax burden by more than $1 billion, Canada's new government is acting in the interests of seniors and retirees.

This is another example of the impotence of the Bloc Québécois, which will never, ever, be able to do as much, because it is a party permanently attached to the opposition benches.

Since the January 23 election, seniors in Louis-Hébert are no longer forgotten.

I am proud to be a member of a team that cares about the well-being of Canadians.

[International Cooperation, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages and the Minister of Foreign Affairs jointly announced $40 million in funding during the Global Microcredit Summit. Subsequently, the opposition claimed that this was not new money.

Can the minister give us some more information about this funding?