Lost her last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.
Canadian Rural Partnership Program February 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food recently announced the winners of the Canadian Rural Partnership Program competition, an unofficial and unannounced political patronage event.
Can the minister tell the House what criteria are used in awarding these funds?
Agriculture February 11th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we are speaking of a federal program paid for by the taxes of everyone in Canada, Quebec farmers included.
Can the minister explain to us why he insists on imposing a rigid program for all of Canada which penalizes Quebec farmers for the financial assistance already received from the Government of Quebec?
Agriculture February 11th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of agriculture told me that Quebec farmers affected by the drop in agricultural produce prices would be “treated equitably, the same as any other farmer in Canada”.
Am I to understand from the minister's words that he plans to provide Quebec producers with the same assistance as to the rest of Canada, without taking into account the measures already available from the Government of Quebec?
Farm Safety Net Income Program February 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, since Quebec has already taken steps to help its producers, particularly in the pork sector, can the minister assure us that Quebec will not be penalized in any way in the implementation of the farm safety net income program?
Farm Safety Net Income Program February 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the national safety net advisory committee is proposing a series of concrete measures to ensure that the $900 million in the farm safety net income program announced by the minister will all be spent, and spent in a way that best helps our producers.
Does the minister intend to implement all the committee's recommendations so that Quebec producers benefit, or does he not?
Farm Safety Net Income Program February 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in December, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced a $900 million aid program to help farmers cope with large revenue losses.
Given that this program sets a number of conditions, in particular a ceiling on allowable individual assistance, without covering negative gross margins, will the minister admit that the total assistance for farmers will unfortunately fall well below the amount announced?
Supply February 4th, 1999
As someone back there said, they are closing down hospitals. They are reorganizing, because provinces have suffered drastic cuts for many years. One cannot help but feel it when the health budget is cut by $1 billion a year in a province.
I think we would have been poor managers if we had not been careful to manage in the best way possible the little money we had left.
I represent a city riding, but I come from the Lower St. Lawrence, a region even more remote than the region represented by the hon. member for Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. We will not argue about the regions. There too, there were organizational problems in health. Still, I think every region in Quebec has been well served with what we had at our disposal.
A bit more money will be put in, and I am sure we are very aware of the needs of our population. So much so that no conditions have been made for to the transfer of funds to provinces. So, every province knows its own needs, glaring needs. We are reminded of them every day and they will be met, I am sure of that.
Supply February 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is hinting at interference in his question, since, once the funds have been transferred to the provinces, it is their job to manage and administer the money. I think the whole of Quebec is on the leading edge in several programs such as medicare, pharmacare and health care in local community service centres.
Supply February 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the provinces have had exclusive jurisdiction and authority over health since the 1867 Constitution Act was passed, leaving the federal government with the responsibility to legislate in the areas of food and drugs, criminal law, quarantine and marine hospitals.
The provinces have been vested with the legislative powers relating to hospitals, the medical profession and the practice of medicine, including costs and effectiveness, the nature of the health care system and the privatization of medical services.
Yet, even though the Constitution Act, 1867 is clear on this, particularly sections 92(7), (13) and (16), the federal lawmaker has been using its inherent spending power to set national standards for provincial medicare programs. It is thus imperative to limit this federal spending power, hence today's motion:
That this House urges the government to respect provincial jurisdiction over health care management, to increase transfers to the provinces for health care unconditionally, and to avoid using budget surpluses to encroach upon the health care field.
All the premiers at the meeting in Saskatoon last August called on the federal government to restore the transfer payments it had taken for itself since 1994 so that they could do something about the widespread needs making themselves felt in the health care system. They called for $6.3 billion, of which $1.8 billion, and therefore over $1 billion for health alone, is Quebec's share.
The federal government has now balanced its budget and is even getting ready to build up a huge surplus estimated at between $12 billion and $15 billion, largely through provincial cuts, to health in particular.
From the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois has been fighting to have the money cut from Quebec's transfer payments restored.
Today, all the premiers were told that they would get back a small portion of what they were asking for to help them with health care costs. This is a far cry from the initial demand of last August, but we are running out of steam and have agreed to accept this paltry amount, which is our due, because it has been offered without any conditions, and Quebec has defended the interests of Quebeckers well on this score. It will be in a better position than anyone else to know which parts of its health care system are most in need of funds.
I would now like to go back to the federal government's interference in provincial affairs, because the Constitution Act, 1867, clearly sets out which are federal and which are provincial areas of jurisdiction.
The federal government is returning to the provinces only part of the billions it cut but, in its constant quest for visibility, apparently has millions to spend on new programs, such as a national home care program. The Liberal government is denying the provinces the right to opt out with full financial compensation for home care. This is a bit like what is happening with the millennium scholarships.
But there is more: in its 1997 budget, the federal government announced that it would spend $150 million over three years on the health services adjustment fund to help the provinces set up pilot projects to provide home care or pharmacare, even though Quebec, well ahead in this area as in many others, already has its own programs.
Since the Constitution prevents the Liberal government from opening federal CLSCs in Quebec, it goes through the back door so it can interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, as it did in education with the millennium scholarships.
Moreover, the health minister is going to spend $50 million over three years to set up a national health information system, as planned in the 1997 budget, and $100 million over three years to improve two existing programs: the community action program for children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program.
Is it going to offer the right to opt out with full compensation to the provinces that do not want those programs?
Finally, on June 18, the federal government renewed its commitment to the fight against breast cancer. The renewed federal contribution is set at $45 million for the first five years. The Minister of Health announced that the Canadian breast cancer initiative would be renewed and enjoy stable, ongoing funding of $7 million per year, as well as a whole series of measures in this area.
However, the breast cancer initiative of the federal government is duplicating Quebec's cancer control program that the former health minister, Mr. Rochon, and the president of the cancer advisory council made public last April. This innovative tool will be used throughout the province of Quebec and has become Quebec's cancer control program, whose theme is it takes a team to beat cancer.
Through its spending power, the federal government is getting involved in cancer control, which demonstrates once again that the Liberal government always finds money to duplicate the work of the provinces. And what about the national report card the health minister has announced?
Again, the minister seems to forget that, since the provinces manage health care services, they are in the best position to know what the health care situation is in their respective jurisdiction.
So, we urge the federal government not to use this annual report to penalize the provinces that do not want any part in it. Will we have the right to opt out?
Our political party will always defend the interests of Quebec. It seems to me that all the other Canadian provinces are not close to their people, since they are willing to accept the central government's interference in their area of jurisdiction. The health issue should have been an eye-opener. But what if it were a question of pride?
To be proud, one has to identify with one's people, which is quite easy for Quebeckers.
Privilege December 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the newspapers for December 9, 1998, more specifically page B7 of La Presse , contain a CP article disclosing the gist of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food's report on the potential farm revenue crisis before the report, with the opposition's dissenting opinions, has been tabled in the House.
This is all the more serious because the journalist managed to obtain a complete copy of the report before it was tabled in the House, which is an affront to the House and to democracy.
On page 229 of chapter 12 of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , there appears the following:
Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his parliamentary duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.
Leaking a committee report or the contents of in camera discussions among committee members before the opposition parties' dissenting opinions have been finalized and the entire report tabled in the House of Commons is an affront to the House and a serious breach of democracy. What has become of members' sense of honour and their undertaking to respect confidentiality?
This is the seventh leak to the newspapers in two weeks. Are these arranged, or in any event, deliberate, since they always serve the same interests, those of the Liberal majority? In addition to being an affront to the House, they are a breach of democracy, since the opposition's dissenting views are omitted.
Mr. Speaker, on December 3, you said that you did not have the power to curtail breaches of parliamentary ethics immediately when no member of parliament could be identified.
You have also acknowledged that this same statement was a case of contempt of Parliament. I am therefore asking you respectfully, Mr. Speaker, whether the rule concerning the confidentiality of House of Commons committee reports until tabling still holds, and whether this rule must be respected in the name of parliamentarism and democracy.
If so, I am asking you to consider the actions of the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food as contempt of Parliament. Also, if this is so, I am prepared to introduce a motion to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to investigate.
In the light of your present knowledge, if you consider there has been contempt of Parliament—