André Bachand

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on health care.

If we were to believe our friends in the government benches, there do not appear to be many problems with health care, except that tens of millions of dollars have been invested in a royal commission and that, everywhere in the provinces, people are talking about health.

I would like to start by saying that we will be very happy to support the motion moved by our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois. This is a simple motion that sends a clear signal to those who are talking about the issues of funding, respect for provincial areas of responsibility and the role of the federal government.

Before beginning my speech, I would like to address two or three points. First, I would like to say that I will be sharing the time allotted to me with my colleague, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest. Second, I will come back to the issue of the role of the federal government. My colleague from the New Democratic Party spoke at length about it earlier. He said that we should expect the federal government to have strong convictions when it comes to the provinces and health care.

However, it is important to remember that the federal government's involvement is mainly through equalization and the health and social transfer, which covers not only health, but also social services. Until I am convinced otherwise, the federal government does not have the same kind of horsemen of the Apocalypse in the field of health as those that are to be found in social services. There are problems in post-secondary education, but when it comes to federal transfers to the provinces, where there are the most constraints and controls is in health care.

It is also important not to overreact. I should hope that no one would accuse the provinces of incompetency when it comes to delivering social services and education. Therefore, we must be wary of this attitude whereby the federal government has to watch over the provinces and lord its cash over them in order to ensure that health care is run properly.

Tax points are one way of ensuring long-term stable and viable funding. If we had this kind of funding today from the federal government—of course, knowing our Liberal friends, it is not likely—but if we had this long-term stable, predictable and substantial funding, we would not necessarily be talking about tax points. There would be less of a need to ensure ongoing, stable and predictable funding to the provinces. This is what tax points do. Right now, unfortunately, such a system offers fewer advantages for the poorest provinces.

That being said, when provinces such as Quebec, or when the National Assembly, to name one body, calls for transfers of tax points, it is because the past experience with the government now in power is disastrous.

Once again, when we examine the two speeches given this morning, one of them said “No, we have provided funding and we know where we are headed. The federal government has put money back into the system. Things are not as bad as all that”. Why then was a royal commission of inquiry set up? That is the question we must ask ourselves.

This morning, someone asked what was the total percentage that the federal government had invested in health. The chair of the Standing Committee on Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, two people somewhat familiar with this issue, do not even know the figures. And we were told “We have spent incredible amounts to find out where our health dollars are going”. With respect to information on health in Canada, we want to know, we want to be accountable. This is why we have spent tens, hundreds of millions of dollars since the Liberals came to power in order to find out where taxpayers' health dollars are going. And two relatively well informed individuals cannot tell us the total percentage that the federal government is spending on health.

So let us not hear that the provinces cannot manage as well as the federal government. Two individuals who should know what the federal government spends do not. Do not ask me. I do not know, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars we are spending to inform the public and make the system of federal funding more accountable.

When they say there is no money problem, this is not true. The minister referred to it in the newspaper La Presse of last Saturday, following her visit to Montreal. She said that the system's funding will remain a problem we will have to deal with sooner or later. That is what she said last Friday in Montreal.

While the Romanow commission is doing its thing, the minister asks the provinces to take their time and refrain from doing anything. They should wait for the Romanow report, not try anything to improve the system. There will be, at the very least, an 18-month waiting period. The government will have to do something following the Romanow report. This means at least a two year waiting period. And they tell us not to move.

Friday, the minister told us that at the end, funding will remain an issue that we will have to deal with sooner or later. We will have to wait two years to do so. Is there a funding problem, yes or no? There is one and the minister acknowledged it. For once, I agree with her.

Her predecessor was more concerned with his leadership than with the issue of health. It is still obvious today. However, the current health minister seems to acknowledge the existence of a funding problem. It is about time she did.

The motion says that despite all the commissions, there is still a funding problem. Money will not solve all the problems. Money cannot buy happiness, but it does help a bit.

Let us look at what the Canadian Medical Association had to say on the matter. It said that there has to be a stable reinvestment in health care. We have to do it. The Romanow commission raises the issue of stable funding as a means to allow provinces to adjust. In Quebec, health care costs show a 6% increase. I mention Quebec because I am more familiar with that province than the others. Quebec has to deal with an investment of 3.5%. Therefore, there is a deficit. Like all other provinces, Quebec is looking for solutions.

After nine months, the federal government is recording a surplus of $13.5 billion, plus the other amounts concealed here, there and everywhere. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will surely touch upon that, since he is so familiar with the situation. I am anxious to see what the figure will be by year end. We know that there will be $2 billion or $3 billion going for infrastructures. This is being spent right away, because if it is left in the government's hands without any instruction by the Minister of Finance or the PMO, there may be talk about its being invested in real things, such as health. That they do not want, so it will instead get put right away into hidden funds and they will attempt to juggle the figures a bit. I will leave it up to people more qualified than myself, in my party and in the others, including the Bloc Quebecois, to address these matters.

Looking at the four major orientations of the interim report, despite all the respect I have for Mr. Romanow, it must be admitted that the Clair commission, the Lord report, the Fyke commission and the Mazankowski report all addressed this very well, and in more detail than the interim report. The Romanow report is not reinventing the wheel. With all due respect to the author, it is not very impressive. It is an interim report, a consultation paper.

Those who came before the Clair and other commissions are going to reprint their briefs with a new date. They will submit them to Mr. Romanow, saying: “The Clair commission has a copy, as do Mr. Mazankowski and Mr. Lord, and all the first ministers have copies as well. If you want one, we will do one up specially for you, with today's date on it”. That is what will be done.

They are delaying. We know the federal government has the money. We know that the provinces are having trouble making ends meet as far as health services are concerned. Costs are skyrocketing. Drug costs are going up, as are all the machines and scan equipment and so on. People want to have the latest in technology because their lives depend on it.

We are pleased to support the motion of our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member about the motion of the Bloc Quebecois member.

Does she recognize that, in fact, the federal government is paying only 14% of the overall costs of health care in Canada?

[Health, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, during their meeting last week in Vancouver, the premiers reiterated their call for a dispute settlement mechanism in the area of health care.

In response to this decision, the new federal Minister of Health was quick to agree, and made a commitment to create such a mechanism.

I would like to congratulate the minister for this new openness toward the concept of intergovernmental cooperation. The provinces have long been waiting for such a gesture by the federal government.

I would also like to remind her that the target date to assess the framework agreement on the social union is February 4. This would be an ideal context in which to broach this issue, which is so important.

The minister's comments are welcome, particularly when compared to her predecessor's intransigence. We wish her success in convincing her cabinet colleagues. We will be following this.

[Minister for International Cooperation, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Deputy Prime Minister would have us think, violating the Municipal Elections Act is no small matter; it is a serious offence which demands serious consequences.

There was a similar case in Quebec. A member of the national assembly was forced to resign in similar circumstances.

Did the minister, or did she not, violate Ontario's election act by voting in a ward other than the one in which she lived? The question is clear: did she or did she not vote outside her own ward? Will she answer?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague who has been keeping us informed of the problems relating to this bill for several weeks now.

Essentially, this is a bill to promote diplomatic tourism. Perhaps the minister responsible for Canadian tourism should have been the one to introduce it.

What it is saying is “Come to our country. Our dollar is at an all-time low. Also, there is very little risk as well of your having any trouble with the Canadian justice system, because you will have immunity. So come on over. At the airport they will give you a guide to our Canadian mountains, the way to get to Mont-Tremblant. On top of that, you will get visitor's papers and immunity”.

I do not know whether diplomatic tourism is part of the strategy, but there is a probable link with the lack of Canadian leadership on the international scene. Instead of showing some leadership internationally, instead of contacting other countries to convince them of the position that should be taken for the good of the people we represent, instead of trying to act as a credible mediator in certain international conflicts, our message is this: “Because Canada has lost a bit of its edge as far as international leadership is concerned, we are going to become the country most visited by those with diplomatic immunity”.

I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks of this bill entitled “Diplomatic Tourism: Canada is Open for Business”.

[Science and Technology, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend we learned that American researchers had successfully cloned an embryo from the nucleus of a human cell.

This scientific experiment took place in the U.S., where there had already been steps taken to prohibit the cloning of human beings.

As we all know, Canada is still waiting for such legislative measures.

On August 8, my leader, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, wrote to the Minister of Health asking him to intervene to ban cloning.

Four months later, no response is yet forthcoming and now we are faced with a fait accompli: science has jumper the gun on legislation.

I am not asking the minister to stop all biomedical advancement, but I am asking that it be properly supervised so as to ensure that Canadians may benefit from such advancement while being protected from potential dangers. The minister's silence on the question puts both of these objectives at risk.

[Down Syndrome, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the last day of the 2001 Down Syndrome Awareness Week.

Each year, the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, in co-operation with its affiliates in every part of the country, organizes a series of public awareness events to make people aware of the plight of those who suffer from this chromosomal disorder.

If some day we want to eliminate the biases relating to this syndrome which, for a long time, was not properly understood, we must support these awareness campaigns and stress the contribution that individuals with Down syndrome make to their community.

We are very appreciative of the efforts of the organizers of this event and, on behalf of all the members of this House, I thank them for their dedication.

I also congratulate them for the 2001 awareness week, and I wish them success in the years to come.

[Hepatitis C, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. I recall the debate and the problem about compensation for victims of hepatitis. The tone was slightly different, and we had a much more heated debate. Let us not forget what happened.

A number of my colleagues have raised the matter of compensation. Unfortunately, there are still problems. People have yet to receive all of the money they are entitled to under the agreement. Some have found themselves outside the terms announced by the federal government so that they could not benefit from the terms of the agreement.

As my colleagues have said, the motion before us concerns hepatitis C, a new disease. It was identified in 1989, that is only 12 years ago.

It is not the first time either that there is talk of making May a month for hepatitis C awareness. As my colleague in the New Democratic Party said, a bill was tabled in the House in this respect, but unfortunately it was not declared votable.

In response to a question, the Minister of Health announced that May would be hepatitis awareness month in Canada but this does not detract from the quality of the motion put forward today, far from it.

On May 17, the Minister of Health said, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada has designated the month of May as Hepatitis Awareness Month in Canada. I thank colleagues in the House for encouraging that step to be taken.

I do not recall that we supported him on this issue, not that we would have had any problem doing so.

Employees from my office did some research on the department's website. I do not know whether they were going at it the wrong way but they found no press release confirming this. They have searched Health Canada's website and found absolutely nothing.

It is therefore a bit strange that, twice now, members of the House have taken steps to designate a hepatitis awareness month in Canada, specifically for hepatitis C as this evening's motion suggests, that the minister has taken a decision, and that the New Democratic Party member says that this month has already been designated, when we can find nothing on the Health Canada website.

It appears that everyone agrees with the motion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you seek the consent of the House to make this motion votable.

I repeat that the motion put forward this evening has unanimous approval. With the fine speeches we have heard, with the support of the government members and of opposition members, unanimous consent can be sought, because everyone is in agreement. I believe that with unanimous consent we could vote on the motion put forward this evening and officially give our support to the Minister of Health.

In closing, we greatly appreciate the member's work and I once again seek unanimous consent so that the House can officially vote on the motion.

[Supply, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by raising two points. First, I want to inform the Chair that I will share my time with my colleague from Fundy—Royal and, second, I want to point out the quality of the motion by my Bloc colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

I want to say from the outset that over the last few weeks, since September 11, we have talked a lot about the military aspect and the military involvement. I will not refer to the pills, but we did talk a lot about arms.

Today, the Bloc's motion proposes fresh approach to the problem that arose on September 11. It takes on a human aspect. It is in reference to that that I would like to commend my Bloc Quebecois colleague.

This is not the first time we have a debate in the House on international aid or on increasing the level of humanitarian aid. During the 1993 election campaign, it will be remembered, the red book stated that if the government party were elected, it would accept to increase international aid to bring it up to the level recommended by the United Nations.

Members in the House will not be surprised that this did not happen. There were other elections, other speeches from the throne, and the government kept saying that it would increase international aid. If we look at two other examples, besides the 1993 elections, the 1999 throne speech said that the government was committed to increasing the level of foreign aid, developing new innovative policies, improving the lot of the poorest countries and enhancing the standard of life of their citizens. Perhaps this was not clear enough.

After the following elections, the House was reconvened on January 30, 2001. About 10 months ago the government committed once again to increase the level of foreign aid and to use these new investments to reduce the poverty level and encourage the development of democracy.

This was the third time that the governing party talked about this: in the 1993 red book and in two speeches of the throne. I hope this bodes well. On average, the government introduces a bill three times before it gets passed. It has said three times that it would increase humanitarian aid. I remember that, when the bill on young offenders or other bills were introduced, the first time this did not work, the government withdrew them. The second time, it said the time was right. There were elections, the House was prorogued and a new session was started. After the elections, it introduced the bill once again. Is this a lack of vision? Perhaps. I hope that, after talking at least three times about increasing international aid, the government will now do it.

That said, it must be understood that it is a huge jump from 0.25% to 0.7%. As most of my colleagues on this side of the floor have said, however, we do have to start looking for the light at the end of the tunnel, start looking at an increase. My colleague from the NDP has referred to a middle of the road solution, of 0.35%, 0.40% or 0.46%. That is where we were in 1992. With all the talk of battling the deficit, we need to realize that the humanitarian aid program has been slashed more than all other items in the government's budget. Canada sees itself as a figurehead on the international level, but it is not even preaching by example.

Today's motion proposes a new aspect to this, to ensure that, on the eve of a budget which is coming within a few weeks—and it is important to point that out, as has been said—the House and the government must make an official commitment to step up international aid. One of the effects of this, just between ourselves, moreover, would be to enhance our credibility with other countries.

As several of my colleagues have pointed out, Canada is lagging behind the other OECD countries. Every year, the gap increases. When we realize that we are lagging behind the other OECD countries as far as international aid is concerned, we have to accept that there is a very clear consequence to this. Canada has lost some of its clout on the international scene. If it really wants to resume its place in the international community, as a leader for peace, sustainable development and assistance to the most disadvantaged countries and to those faced with problems, whether natural disasters or other problems, then we have to put our money where our mouth is. Humanitarian aid is very important.

Faced with deficit problems, most countries have cut their budgets. But Canada has made the deepest cuts of all G-7 countries in humanitarian aid. Yes, other countries made cuts, because there were problems. Unfortunately, although I hope I am wrong, this government will probably experience its first recession. I am anxious to see how it will handle it, but I think it will shoot itself in the foot. After enjoying a fairly prosperous stretch in the years since 1993, it will have to face the music, although, of course, it is not music we would wish on it.

The House should know that countries such as Denmark are contributing 1.06%; the Netherlands, 0.82%; Sweden, 0.81%, and so on.

There are therefore examples. The surprising thing is that these countries are not seeking to be leaders on the military or peacekeeping scene. They are countries which have decided to contribute in proportion to their collective wealth.

We want to be a leader everywhere but a look at our humanitarian aid figures shows that we are lagging behind other countries.

Foreign aid contributes to stability. Coupled with debt forgiveness and liberalization of trade, it can significantly reduce poverty in developing countries, paving the way as it does for sustained economic development.

What is more, if countries are able to crawl out from under an unbelievable level of poverty and infant mortality, there are strong chances that civil wars can be averted or brought to an end. There are strong chances that these countries will really become democratic allies internationally.

We urge the government to get with it, to support these initiatives. As I said, the Prime Minister openly recommended at the G-8 in Japan that industrialized countries collectively increase their foreign aid contributions by 10%. We have yet to see this here.

We therefore hope that in the upcoming budget the motion by the Bloc Quebecois member will have an impact, that people will listen. If we are contributing hundreds of millions of dollars toward the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan, we should be able to take a look at the more global issue of humanitarian aid and ensure that Canada's contribution is officially increased.

In conclusion, I wish to say that the internationalism and compassion that characterized the Pearson government are a distant memory. We are accustomed to governments of all stripes providing more support for international development.

I hope the government will adopt this philosophy and take the action sought by the motion.

[Health, October 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, before the Standing Committee on Health and here in the House, the Minister of Health insisted that all of the relevant information regarding the Cipro affair was included in his department's affidavit and that it answered all our questions.

We have now learned that a second generic drug company, Novopharm, was approached on October 15 to meet the demand for Cipro.

If the affidavit was indeed complete, why then did it make no mention of Novopharm?