Jeannot Castonguay

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for her excellent presentation, especially when she mentioned that she had tried to make her speech non-political.

I think that all of us often have a collective responsibility for the expectations that we have created in the public by speaking about free care. The result has been that, very often, people demand services based much more on what they want than on what they need, as my colleague mentioned.

I would like to know what her ideas are. How could we reverse this trend and redirect it towards the availability of services based on needs?

At one point, my colleague spoke of a commission. I would like her to elaborate and comment on this.

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, in Quebec, the provincial government decided to offer pensions to doctors who agreed to retire.

This evening, the hon. member is talking about the need to recruit 3,000 doctors, and I am trying to reconcile all this. Some years ago—but this is still relatively recent—that same government decided that there were too many doctors and offered them early retirement. Surprisingly, many more doctors than anticipated took the government up on its offer.

How can we reconcile the fact that, today, they are saying that if they had more money, they would recruit more doctors with the fact that they offered early retirement to doctors a few years ago?

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question to my colleague, who has been here for a number of years already. With regard to the current provincial transfer formula, does he think that we could look at whether the money transferred for health care does in fact go to health care? I would like to hear his comments on this. Could this be a way to ensure that we know exactly where our investments in provincial transfers are going?

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what my colleague had to say. Since I will soon join the ranks of those who are 65 and older, I must think about my welfare also.

I am well aware of the problem that exists throughout the country. People say “We have lived many years in our community and would really like to be taken care of at home”. I believe they are right. This is part of the challenge that we face.

We have difficulty keeping medical and nursing staff in the regions, close to these people. In New Brunswick, I looked for all kinds of ways to get financial incentives and, frankly, after a few years, people say “We do not need them anymore and we will move on”.

Do you have any ideas on how to keep these health care workers close to those people, where there are real needs?

The answer is not necessarily easy, and I do not have it.

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the issue of the 50-50 cost sharing we have been hearing about ad nauseam over the last few weeks.

We must recognize that when you were talking about the 1947 agreement providing for the 50-50 sharing, we were talking about hospitalization insurance. If we add all health care and other programs, will my colleague agree that, in the end, it was not at all a 50-50 cost sharing that had been agreed upon, at the beginning, in terms of hospitalization insurance? It was a totally different formula.

It is clear that if we add all the other components, the cost sharing is no longer on a 50-50 basis. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this point.

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to my learned colleague opposite, whom I appreciate very much since I work with him on the Standing Committee on Health.

He mentioned, among other things, that health care needs to be rethought. Having practised medicine for a number of years, I absolutely agree with that. Indeed we have seen a significant increase in the demand for home care, palliative care, and so on.

In light of this need and in light of the importance of this commission, does the member think that this debate on the future of health care is futile? Does he think that we should not be doing this? I would like him to comment on this.

[Groupe Savoie, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to tell you how proud I am to be a representative of Atlantic Canada, and of the Madawaska—Restigouche area in particular.

Entrepreneurs in our area are among the most dynamic and resourceful in New Brunswick. The Government of Canada has played a major role in helping stimulate the province's economy. In fact, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has helped create opportunities and employment. The agency has long been an important element in the success of small businesses in New Brunswick. Groupe Savoie is a good example.

In 1978, when Hector and Jean-Claude Savoie purchased two mills in St. Quentin, they employed approximately 25 workers. Today, they employ 400 and use start of the art equipment.

Groupe Savoie has also been successful internationally. Some 20% of its product is shipped overseas to Europe and another 30% to the U.S. market.

Groupe Savoie is just one example of the New Brunswick companies that are creating employment and making Atlantic Canada an ideal place to live and invest.

This should make all Canadians proud.

[Health, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question that concerns all of us in this House.

As we know, one of the things that is not costly and that we can do to maintain and improve our state of health is simply to do some physical activity and lose some of that tummy. This would ease the pressure on our joints, improve our blood circulation, and it would be good for our heart and legs.

Of course, the Government of Canada is aware of the seriousness of the situation. Health Canada invested $4 million to work with the provinces and territories, and with volunteer groups—

[Pest Control Products Act, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1 is an amendment pertaining to the definition of confidential business information and should read in part as follows: “...meets the requirements of subsection 43(4) or (5)” instead of “43(4) and (5)”.

These two subsections identify different types of confidential business information, so the definition would not be exact. Information can meet the requirements of one subsection or the other, but not both at the same time.

The purpose of Motion No. 7 is to provide for equal participation by the Senate and the House of Commons, when the legislation is reviewed after seven years. The amendment is in accordance with the principles defining the Senate's role as established in the Constitution of Canada.

[2003 Canada Winter Games, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to stress the excellent work that is being done in my region, in preparation for the 2003 Canada Winter Games, which will be held next year, from February 22 to March 8.

The reason I am mentioning it today is because I want to invite all hon. members, their families and friends to reserve early, so that they can be there to watch the performances of our sport's elite.

Over 3,000 young athletes from all over the country will gather to give their best performances. Let us be there to cheer them on.

Let us do our best to be there for them.

Let us plan now to go and encourage our athletes. This is an invitation to come and visit us next February, in New Brunswick, and more specifically in the Bathurst-Campbellton region, during the 2003 Canada Winter Games.

Let us write it down on our agendas.