Pierre De Savoye

[Department Of Health Act, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we are considering Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department of Health.

This bill contains a number of disturbing clauses, and the Bloc members who spoke before me in this debate pointed out that the provinces will have to pay close attention to how the federal health minister implements these clauses, because they give the federal government an opportunity to encroach on an area of provincial jurisdiction.

I think that our concerns are totally justified; I would like to go beyond the clauses themselves and look at how the Department of Health has been positioning itself for some time now.

As hon. members will recall, in the throne speech almost two years ago, the government announced the national forum on health with great fanfare. What has happened since then?

I would like to think about this because I think it puts the bill before us in a special light and allows us to express a number of reservations with arguments that everyone can understand better.

This forum on health officially started its operations on October 20, 1994, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister and the vice-chairmanship of the Minister of Health. The mandate of this forum is to improve the health of the Canadian people, increase the effectiveness and efficiency of health care services, and make recommendations to help the government achieve these goals.

We should point out here that the federal government does not miss any opportunity to interfere in the area of health. The federal government therefore decided to participate in the debate and even to initiate the consulting process to assess the Canadian health system, despite the fact that this is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, while setting future priorities in order to improve the quality of health care.

The federal government is making a lot of claims. As you will recall, it turned down the request by provinces to participate fully in the work of the national forum on health. Instead, the Liberals decided to let the provinces attend the forum but only as observers.

How, I ask you, could the federal government disregard the main stakeholders in the area of health, namely the provinces? On September 27, 1994, the current Minister of Labour, who was then Quebec's Minister of Health, told La Presse : ``The federal government's conduct does not make any sense. How can they contemplate reviewing the health care system without the partici-

pation of the provinces, which must provide the services. It is simply unacceptable".

Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux said, in the other place, on May 31, 1994, that the government was headed in the wrong direction by overlooking the role of the provinces. She said, and I quote: "Are the provinces not considered major partners? Why were they not invited to participate in the forum? Does the leader find it appropriate for the government to be acting unilaterally on a matter of provincial responsibility?"

Needless to say that the federal government went ahead with its national forum on health, in spite of the strong objections of the key players in the health sector, namely the provinces.

On October 21, 1994, during question period, the Prime Minister said, and I quote: "We in Canada cannot afford to lose our health insurance system because we did not take the time to plan for the future".

That statement from the Prime Minister is telling in more ways than one. First, the federal government sets itself up as keeper and promoter of the quality of health care services provided to the public. According to the Prime Minister, it is thanks to the federal government if the health care system, as it exists, is the pride of Canadians.

Following a meeting with provincial officials in Victoria, the health minister said, in a press release: "The October 15 date is final. However, I believe we can reach an agreement to end extra-billing by clinics to cover essential medical services. It was never my intention to penalize the provinces, but I firmly intend to preserve and to protect Canada's health care system".

Meanwhile, the federal government is careful not to mention the dramatic consequences of its financial withdrawal which, for Quebec alone, will have resulted in a shortfall of over $8 billion between 1982-83 and 1994-95. That is a lot of money, considering that the government claims to be the keeper of health care in Canada.

The government is also trying to give the impression that it is the only one able and willing to propose efficient solutions to solve the thorny issue of funding for our health care system, as it currently exists. The federal government goes so far as to assume the responsibility of defining priorities to preserve the future of quality health care services.

The Prime Minister's statement shows to what degree the federal government sees itself as the "great thinker" regarding Canada's current and future health care systems, as well as the one which can ensure that it remains accessible, free and universal.

Let me quote an excerpt from a document on the federal-provincial perspective prepared by Thomas Duperré on behalf of Quebec's commission of inquiry on health and social services: "By using several programs gradually put in place over the years, the federal health department tends to give itself overall responsibility for health and social services, and it does not hesitate to describe itself as the main architect of the implementation and smooth operation of Canada's health system. It should be noted that, for the Canadian government, health services (and, to a lesser degree, social services) in this country form, to a large extent, a nationwide system. Indeed, Ottawa sees provincial governments as mere health care providers, and provincial programs, which never seem to form a global structure, as mere elements of the national system. Provinces, and particularly Quebec, sometimes find it hard to understand the federal government's attitude in the health and social sector. This is because they forget that, rightly or wrongly, the central government gives itself a much larger role than the one provided in the constitution".

Nevertheless, it is obvious that the provinces constitute the ideal sociopolitical agent for health system reform. According to the distribution of powers under the 1867 Constitution Act, only the provinces have the power to create, deliver and administer health and social services to the public.

Let us look at the example of the various actions undertaken by the government of Quebec to transform, modify and improve the health system over the past ten years. Let us think of the Rochon Commission, which took a critical look at the entire health system in Quebec. Each component of the system was placed under scrutiny and a number of groups involved in the health field spoke before public Commission hearings, in order to make known their concerns, their anguish, and their suggestions for improving the irritants inherent to the system.

After this brief review, I hardly need point out in connection with Bill C-95 that the provinces and Quebec are the ones best placed to intervene directly and knowledgeably in the system of health care and services. Who better than the provinces to know what the true issues are, and what solutions are required, to keep the health system accessible, universal and free of charge?

The better solution by far would be to hand over to the provinces all taxes earmarked for health care, allowing them to provide their populations with appropriate and suitable health services. Interaction between the provinces would result in agreements to ensure the delivery of services that, while homogeneous and equivalent,

were tailored to the specific requirements and means of each province, Quebec in particular. I shall close on this note,Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your kind attention.

[Laurent Beaudoin, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the current referendum debate, Bombardier President Laurent Beaudoin should recognize Quebec's contribution to the success of his company instead of hinting that it might leave the province if the Yes side wins.

Such comments are insulting, not only to the sovereignists but to all Quebecers who contributed to the success of Bombardier and were proud of it.

We should remember that government backing, with the support of Quebec taxpayers, was a major ingredient of that success.

I would ask Mr. Beaudoin, who heads Bombardier, a symbol of Quebec entrepreneurship, to put his talents at the service of his compatriots, whatever the outcome.

[Minister Of Foreign Affairs, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs committed an outrageous blunder in referring to the situation in the former Yugoslavia.

What did he mean by saying that "We have not yet started killing, killing one another, and I hope that the situation of the former Yugoslavia will never apply to Canada". This statement, fraught with hidden meanings as it is, requires clarification.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian government ought to be ashamed of making such insinuations.

For this reason the Bloc Quebecois most strongly condemns these absolutely thoughtless words spoken by the minister during his visit to the UN. The irresponsibility of the minister speaks volumes about the no side, the intolerance, insult and abuse the no side has to offer to the people of Quebec.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about sustainable development, a very important issue. We must not pollute the waters where we swim nor the water we drink. Otherwise, we risk poisoning ourselves. We must not pollute the air we breathe if we want to avoid intoxication.

We should take measures to ensure that not only future generations, but our own will have the opportunity to really appreciate and fully enjoy nature, the world around us.

When we speak about an auditor for the environment, I think the idea is very interesting, but I cannot help having some reservations. I would like to share these with you. I am sure my colleague will then reply and allay my concerns.

You know, Madam Speaker, that we already have an auditor general who, year after year, each and every year, presents a very extensive report on the administrative failings of the federal government. God knows this report is not a small document. The auditor publishes an imposing series of volumes every year.

If we felt, when the report is tabled, that results were not only expected, but were in fact there, that they had been delivered, I would say to myself: auditing works, we have set up mechanisms whereby the government is responsible to the public, and the government changes course as required.

But this is really not the case. I am thinking of the Commissioner of Official Languages. As the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages, I repeatedly have occasion to regret the fact that, despite his good efforts, the Commissioner of Official Languages still failed to achieve the results he was hoping for and even that, recently, in February, his budget was cut. He is not alone. Many government agencies and departments are in the same situation, but that does not help him do his work.

So, of course, my honourable colleague says that the environmental auditor will be able to call attention to failures, but that is not enough. Knowing that things are going badly is a step in the right direction, but being unable to do anything or being unwilling to do something is a more serious matter.

Will we once again, and this is the heart of my question, be faced with a situation where, well aware of the corrective action to be taken, we must once more regret the fact that such action was not taken? Perhaps my honourable colleague can answer my concern?

[The Late Dr. Charles Willoughby, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Dr. Willoughby and, on behalf of all the members of the Bloc Quebecois, offer my condolences to members of his family and his friends.

Dr. Willoughby was a member of this House in 1963; you will understand that at that time I was only 21 years old and did not have the opportunity to know him. However, from the notes I have in front of me, I gather that he was 69 when he was elected for the first time to this House. I understand that Dr. Willoughby first made a career in medicine, devoting himself to his fellow men, and then at an age when most people take a well deserved retirement, he decided to devote a few more years of his life to the service of his fellow citizens of Kamloops.

This is indeed remarkable, and it must be said that since he died this year at the age of 101, public life obviously rejuvenates and gives a taste for life. On behalf of all the Bloc Quebecois members, I reiterate our deepest condolences to his large family, to his children and grand-children and to all his friends.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address this House on Bill C-91. This bill seeks to do many things, including changing the name of the Federal Business Development Bank, which will become the Business Development Bank of Canada. As they say, what is in a name? What does that name change involve? Let me explain a few things, particularly as regards clause 21, which reads:

The Bank may carry out duties or functions that may be assigned to it by the Designated Minister in relation to the administration of any program supporting Canadian entrepreneurship, to the extent that it is able to recover the costs of carrying out the duties or functions.

The clause says "to the extent that it is able to recover the costs of carrying out the duties or functions". As you know, when a bank lends money, it takes a risk. Here, the level of risk is not defined. We have reservations about that.

The minister responsible for implementing the act can ask the Business Development Bank of Canada to support Canadian entrepreneurship by carrying out duties or functions currently assigned to other federal departments or agencies.

Bill C-91 seeks to ensure that the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, better known as the FORD-Q, will be the provider of federal services and programs to small and medium size businesses.

I have several objections regarding this bill. First, this legislation is another centralizing measure which will create unnecessary and costly duplication. Bill C-91 completely eliminates the role of the provincial government in terms of helping small and medium size businesses.

As you know, this contradicts the Liberal government's claims that it wants to abolish duplication and overlap with the provinces. This centralizing attempt is obvious in clauses 20 and 21, which will allow the Business Development Bank of Canada to enter into agreements with other federal departments to deliver assistance to small and medium size businesses directly.

The agreements signed, including with the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, will allow the federal government to interfere more in regional development projects. I did not say "to get involved", but to "interfere", which is definitely not the same. "To get involved" is to act like a partner, while "to interfere" is to usurp a place when you are not invited.

Clause 20 of the bill provides that the Business Development Bank of Canada may enter into agreements directly with any other body or person. That means that it could have agreements with regional development councils, which is precisely what the FORD-Q would like. In Quebec, the Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif does not allow agencies under provincial jurisdiction to enter into agreements with the federal government without the minister's approval. We can see here the difference between partnership and interference.

Consider the context of clause 20, which is far from innocuous because the Quebec legislation could be bypassed. Given the present budgetary restrictions, if the federal government wants to fund projects advocated by a regional development council, the council will strongly pressure the Quebec government for an exemption. Unfortunately, this is already a common occurrence. The federal and provincial governments are on a collision course because of legislation that does not foster partnership, but interference in a local process.

Once again, we have the federal government blatantly disregarding the very existence of the Quebec government and securing the legislative authority to act without prior consultation with Quebec or, for that matter, any other province. I am referring to the Quebec situation because I am familiar with it, but all provinces will suffer from the adverse impact of this bill.

My second misgiving concerns regional development and more particularly the federal government's centralist attack that is in direct contradiction with Quebec's regionalization policy.

I had the honour and the privilege to sit on the National Capital Commission-and I am talking about Quebec City and the future of Quebec-and I heard the presentations made by many stakeholders who believed that regionalization in the province of Quebec is crucial. However, the federal government has never recognized that regional development is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

During every round of constitutional negotiations, Ottawa has ignored our demand. Instead, Ottawa promised the government of Quebec to limit its presence in the regions to what is provided for under the Canada-Quebec framework agreements. However, ERDA, the Economic and Regional Development Agreement to which my distinguished colleague referred earlier, came to an end, that was in December 1994 I think, and the federal government has refused to renew it. The Canada-Quebec agreement has expired.

Without joint programs with the government of Quebec, the mandate of FORD-Q becomes practically obsolete. So, to maintain its visibility in the regions, the federal government has found nothing better than to redefine the mandate of FORD-Q.

Nowadays, FORD-Q is known as the delivery arm for all the small businesses assistance programs set up by the federal departments and will be able, on the one hand, to provide assistance services to small and medium size businesses through a single information window and, on the other hand, to develop new programs, particularly for exporting SMBs, through federal departments.

A third concern of mine has to do with the fact that the federal government prefers to withdraw from social program funding. It is well known. It takes the taxpayers' money to create useless overlaps with Quebec agencies which support small and medium size businesses.

The 1995 federal budget, as we know, cut more than $7 billion from social programs. The federal government is asking people to make sacrifices because it has no more money. It even uses the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund-of all things-which is financed by employers and employees. And what does it do with this money? It finances new child care programs, new programs to fight against poverty, new manpower training programs, which, it must be said, all infringe on provincial jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, the federal government is in no hurry when it comes to responding to Quebec's demands, which are that it withdraw from the fields of manpower training and regional development and reduce this costly and useless duplication. However, Ottawa continues to ignore Quebec's demands, even though this waste of money affects taxpayers and creates an administrative mess, because the beneficiaries of these programs no longer know where to turn. Moreover, it creates unproductive and unhealthy competition between programs that are not even based on the same strategies. And that is where the problem lies. These programs are not based on the same strategies. Strategies which are useful, necessary and beneficial to Quebec are not necessarily the ones chosen by the federal government.

I will conclude by saying that I regret that this bill has been proposed in this form by the government and that I fervently hope that, this fall, Quebec will take control of its destiny and that we will no longer have to engage in these pointless negotiations cap in hand, with Ottawa, but rather will be able to negotiate as equals with the goal of a happy and healthy prosperity for all.

[Quebec Sovereignty, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today we wish to draw the attention of the House to the historic agreement endorsed by the Action démocratique du Québec, the Government of Quebec and the official opposition in Ottawa, the Bloc Quebecois. In response to the expectations of Quebecers, the team for change will put before Quebecers this fall a proposal for sovereignty for Quebec and an offer of economic and political partnership with Canada.

Faced with the atmosphere of resignation and inertia engulfing the "no" camp, the forces for change united to offer a plan for the future and invite Quebecers to say yes to themselves, to stand tall and to speak as equals to the other nations of this world.

We are all confident that this plan for partnership reflects the genuine and profound aspirations of the people of Quebec.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, given that the budget for the CBC's French network is 40 per cent lower than that of the English network, in spite of similar viewership, does the minister undertake to direct the board of directors of the CBC to spare the French network?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

In another memo dated May 23, the CEO of the CBC informed his employees that 1,000 positions would be cut by September 1995 and that 350 employees would be laid off in the short term.

Mr. Beatty added that the exact number of positions to be cut in the various facilities remained to be determined, since management plans had not yet been approved by the resources planning and allocation committee.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage realize how anxious the French network staff, particularly in Quebec, are about the decisions this committee is about to make, given that francophones are a very small minority on this committee?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, I would like to ask the House if these is unanimous consent to find this bill votable.

As we know, Canadians have been waiting for such a piece of legislation. We have the opportunity to have an important in-depth debate which would enlighten members of Parliament as well as the public. Later on, we will have the opportunity, if the House so desires, to vote to refer this bill to a committee.

What we are talking about now is to have two more opportunities to debate this bill. Therefore, I ask the House for its unanimous consent.