Bernard Bigras

[The Environment, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in order to get Quebec to pay, the Minister of the Environment is taking a sectoral approach, rather than territorial, in other words, by province.

Is the minister aware that the sectoral approach puts Quebec at a disadvantage, and that by taking such an approach, the government is making Quebec pay twice rather than once?

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would ask you to use your authority to call the member to order. I believe it is important today for us to speak to the fundamental issue of health care. I would like our colleague to get back to the topic of the motion.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is good timing since this issue is very much at the forefront. We have to realize that we must deal with the root causes of the problems we are experiencing in the area of health, which obviously include health care funding, but other problems also.

We have to understand that addressing issues such as climatic change and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada will be beneficial to our health to finally understand that environment must be a priority. When 85% of Quebec's budget goes to health care, there is only 15% left for other budget items, including the environment, and that is totally unacceptable.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

I am glad to answer my colleague's question because she seems to assume that Quebec is the only province faced with the health care issue.

The fact that this is really a systemic problem proves that there is no connection with what she just said about sovereignty or anything else. There is an obvious funding problem in the provincial health care system.

To convince my colleague, it is estimated—and I urge her to take notes—that the shortfall in Quebec is $1.7 billion annually, and $875 million in health care alone.

Do you have any idea what that means in terms of doctor and nurse positions? This $875 million means that 3,000 doctors and 5,000 nurses could be hired to ensure that Quebecers can count on health care services that respect the five principles entrenched in the federal act.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to inform the Chair that I will split my time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I am pleased to address the motion of the Bloc Quebecois that was tabled by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, which is adjacent to my riding. The motion reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for withdrawing from health-care funding, for no longer shouldering more than 14 per cent of the costs of health care, and for attempting to invade provincial areas of jurisdiction by using the preliminary report by the Romanow Commission to impose its own vision of health care.

This motion is of course a long one and it includes several words. However, it should clearly be stated from the outset that it has two objectives. The first one is to demonstrate how the federal government has, in recent years—and this is what I will attempt to demonstrate here—opted out of a service which, in the minds of Quebecers, is essential. How can we explain that the federal government has made such drastic cuts to its contribution to health in recent years?

I also want to discuss the whole issue of related provincial jurisdictions. As the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said earlier, it is rather surprising that the Minister of Health, who is herself an expert on constitutional law, does not understand once and for all that the recommendations of the Romanow commission, which deal among other things with provincial jurisdictions, are totally unacceptable. It is regarding this aspect that, in the ten minutes that I have, I will try to convince those who are listening.

Before getting to the core of the issue, it is important to go back in time to understand how this tax imbalance has its origin in Canadian history. As we know, way back in 1942, the provinces, including Quebec, willingly decided to take part in what was called the war effort by agreeing to transfer, in the case of Quebec, a number of tax points on a temporary basis. I insist on the term “temporary”, because over the years, the federal government seems to have forgotten that this transfer was only for a particular time in our history, that is during the war.

At that time, the federal government assumed the right to collect personal and corporate income tax. No problem so far. The provinces, including Quebec, totally agreed to that until the war ended in 1945, when the time came for them to get these tax points back. The federal government said “No, we are keeping them. We are not giving them back to the provinces”. It kept accumulating the money and refused to transfer the tax points back to the provinces as initially planned in 1942.

This is why, later on, Quebec introduced its own taxation system, which was considered double taxation, to be able to provide services to Quebecers.

At the same time, the federal government was passing an increasing number of legislative measures, particularly in the area of health. Let us not forget our history.

In 1957, the hospital insurance program was established. In 1966, the Medical Care Act was passed. From 1957 on, each time the federal government interfered in an area under provincial jurisdiction, Quebec reacted. Quebec passed its own legislation because we believe that health is a provincial responsibility. While the federal government passed legislation on hospital insurance in 1957, Quebec introduced a hospital insurance plan in 1961. While the federal government passed its Medical Care Act in 1966, Quebec introduced its own health insurance plan in 1970.

So, historically, Quebec has assumed its constitutional responsibilities every time. This being the case, the government decided to contribute to the health system by funding 50% of health costs. But there was a string attached. The federal government said: “You have to comply with the five principles of the Canada Health Act. So, we give you 50% but you have to respect certain principles, including universality, accessibility, portability, public administration and comprehensiveness”. The federal 50% is conditional upon respect of these five principles, which are in the federal legislation.

Over time, as the years went by, we became aware that the federal government has never hesitated to cut its share of funding. Two programs were created: established program financing and the public insurance program, which evolved into the Canada health and social transfer. It is the principal federal contribution to health care, but also funds our post-secondary education system and what might be termed health and social services, welfare.

The problem arose when this real imbalance set in, when the federal government got out of funding. I would like to review a few figures.

In 1993-94, 22% of health care spending in Quebec came from the federal government. In 2005-06, it will be 13%. While the health care needs are in Quebec and in the provinces, while the provinces are required to provide services, and are prepared to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities, the federal government is taking advantage of a situation to tighten its purse strings and refuse to provide the funding required to respect the five principles laid out in federal legislation.

I would also like to remind the House that in 1983, 28% of Quebec's revenue came from federal transfers. In 2000-01, transfers account for only 16% of Quebec's revenue. The federal government's transfer contribution is shrinking yet the needs are growing and. more specifically, the Quebec government spends two-thirds of its budget on health care, education and social services.

We can try to predict, we can try to project and assess what share of spending will go toward education and health in 2010-11. We are forecasting that 85% of the Government of Quebec's budget will go to these three areas.

The needs are increasing, but the means to fund these services is diminishing. This is fairly curious, because in order to find a solution to this backing away from fiscal commitments, this tax imbalance, the government has nothing better to propose than creating a commission. It established the Romanow commission, whose recommendations included interfering in the provinces' areas of responsibility.

If the federal government wishes to solve the problem of health care for the provinces for once and for all, it has to provide the required funding. We must give the provinces the financial resources they need to provide services. Then, we will find solid and sustainable solutions to the health care problem in Quebec.

[Kyoto Protocol, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the province of Alberta, which is the largest producer of greenhouse gases, is rich because of its oil. It has the lowest rate of taxation in Canada and the government was able to establish a heritage fund from oil revenues.

Why does the Minister of the Environment feel that Quebec should share the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions with Alberta, which finds itself facing a large bill precisely because of its use of oil? If Alberta is reaping tremendous benefits from oil development, why would it not also shoulder the consequences that go with it?

[Kyoto Protocol, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, between 1990 and 1997, Quebec reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 3% per capita, making it a front runner in this category.

The Minister of the Environment wants to have the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions shared by all the provinces. Will he tell us why those who, like Quebec, have already taken a step in this direction should now have to pay for those who have as yet done nothing?

[Kyoto Protocol, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of the Environment admit that if it were not for Quebec's performance in limiting greenhouse gases, Canada would be the world's number one producer of greenhouse gases per capita and that, consequently, it is urgent that the Canadian government ratify the Kyoto protocol and ensure that it is implemented according to the set timetables?

[Kyoto Protocol, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that Quebec is in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol and that if we were sovereign, we would do it.

The Kyoto protocol must be signed and implemented as quickly as possible if we want to protect our planet. For the past number of years, Quebec has made environmental choices that now make it a leader in the fight to reduce greenhouse gases.

Will the Minister of the Environment admit that the ratification of the Kyoto protocol by Canada is critical and that Quebec should not be adversely affected by the inaction of the rest of Canada when it comes to limiting greenhouse gases? Quebec—

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-5, which we have had the opportunity to examine in committee. A number of amendments were introduced in committee, some of which were rejected and others accepted.

This is an important bill. Hon. members must keep in mind that Quebec has had endangered species legislation since 1990. This was introduced by the Liberal government of Quebec and passed by the Quebec National Assembly with a very large majority, if not unanimity.

To put ourselves in context, Quebec had this legislation from 1990 onward, along with fishery regulations and a wildlife conservation act. So, as far back as 1990, Quebec was in the vanguard as far as the protection of endangered species was concerned, 11 years ahead. As well, as far back as 1996, the provinces and the federal government entered into what was called the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, which committed them as follows, and I quote:

Federal, provincial and territorial Ministers responsible for wildlife commit to a national approach for the protection of species at risk. The goal is to prevent species in Canada from becoming extinct as a consequence of human activity.

This was signed in 1996, six years after the Quebec endangered species legislation.

We are not opposed in principle to legislation protecting species and habitat in Canada, provided it applies to federal territory, affects crown land and national parks, and we might go so far as having the Migratory Birds Convention, which we acknowledge as federal jurisdiction, come under the federal legislation we are looking at today.

Where we do have a problem is that with this bill, clause 34 in particular, the federal government is preparing what is termed a double safety net. This means that, from the very moment the federal government of its own accord, the national accord notwithstanding, decides that the Quebec legislation, or the province is not protecting its species and its habitat sufficiently, the federal legislation is going to kick in and apply to the entire territory of Quebec, regardless of what has been enacted by the National Assembly, despite its endangered species legislation, its wildlife conservation legislation and its fishing regulations. This is totally unacceptable.

It is also totally unacceptable that certain amendments proposed in committee will end up determining the mechanism that will trigger the safety net. Not only are some of the amendments proposed in committee unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois, but they are also unacceptable to the Liberal government opposite.

On this subject, I received a missive last week, a letter from the Minister of the Environment, who indicated that some of the amendments proposed in committee strengthened the federal government's ability to determine how the safety net would be triggered.

Some of the amendments will have the effect of giving the federal government more power in determining how the safety net will be established. This will apply despite the fact that an accord was signed in 1996, as I mentioned, to protect endangered species.

The minister's letter specifies that the provisions of the safety net set out in Bill C-5 are there to ensure that, and I quote the minister:

If a province or territory fails to live up to the commitments that it has made under the accord, the federal government will react. However, it is up to the provinces and territories to act within their jurisdiction.

It makes no sense to have legislation that does not apply to provincial lands, yet have in the same bill, based on one single clause, a safety net that is triggered and that would apply to a province. This is somewhat troubling, particularly because Quebec already has its own legislation on endangered species and species at risk.

It is also important to point out that this bill creates what are known as enforcement officers. These federal enforcement officers will be responsible for enforcing the federal act, even in the case where the safety net is triggered in a province.

We can ask ourselves the following question: who will be responsible for the protection of species in Quebec? Will it be wildlife conservation and protection officers under the provincial legislation or federal agents?

The government must not act like a police officer. Rather, it must co-operate and promote harmonization, as is provided in the national Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk since October 1996.

So, it is rather disturbing to see what the government is about to pass in the House, because this act might apply in Quebec if we had not passed our own legislation. However, in spite of the fact that Quebec has its own legislation, the federal government is about to steamroll the work done by the province and this is rather disturbing.

It is also rather disturbing to see that the federal government has decided to assume the authority to protect endangered wildlife species in Canada. It is also disturbing to see that it refuses to give the necessary additional funds and to set up the mechanism through which landowners will be compensated.

As we know, the Pearse report—and the Canadian Alliance member referred to it earlier—recommends that a landowner be compensated when the losses that he absorbs exceed 10%. If these losses reach 10%, a compensation mechanism would come into play and 50% of the property's market value would be paid back.

If the federal government really wants to protect endangered species and make this a priority, it must inevitably ensure that assistance and compensation to landowners reflect its priorities.

Therefore, we will support the first group of motions by Canadian Alliance members, because we feel that protecting species also implies compensating people. So, we will support these motions. I will come back later on in the debate.