Luc Malo

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for his remarks.

His example is certainly relevant because, once again, he has shown that, as he said himself in his speech, Health Canada officials do not administer hospitals, they do not manage waiting lists and they do not treat patients. That is not what they do. The hon. member forArgenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel says that the federal government wants to walk away from the only hospital it is responsible for because it is not up to the task. This is quite logical because, as I told my Liberal colleague who asked the question, that kind of expertise is in the hands of the governments of Quebec and the provinces, as it always has been. They are the ones who really know the needs of the patients. They are the ones who administer hospitals, they are the ones who manage and train staff. As I said, education is in the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. That is why the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel asks how it is that, with the money that Quebeckers give to the federal government, they are not able to get the funds necessary to improve all their systems, specifically through tax points. That is what is important. I am sure that is what all hon. members of this House want. They want money to be managed in the best possible way and tax money from the public to go to important areas. So it should go back to the governments that are the best at properly managing the health care system.

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Indeed, the federal government is responsible for specific groups under the Constitution. One example is first nations communities. When I hear him say that, I have to wonder why is it that the Standing Committee on Health has had first nations groups appear before it to say that they do not even have clean drinking water. That is a federal responsibility and the government is not even fulfilling it.

After that, the government has the nerve to say that Ottawa must oversee what all of the provinces are doing, even though it cannot even take care of the groups it is responsible for. Once again, Ottawa knows best.

The hon. member is telling us that the Government of Ontario—and the member represents a riding in Ontario—cannot even see the health care problems there. Of course, nothing is perfect we are not trying to suggest otherwise here today. Even if this government were to suddenly stop interfering in health care, all of the problems facing our health care systems would not necessarily go away. However, that does not matter, because when it comes to governments that assume their responsibilities, that know the problems, that really know how it works and know the institutions they are responsible for, those are the governments that will have the resources, because the federal government will have transferred to them the funds owing to them. That money comes from taxpayers who send half of their taxes to Ottawa. They will have the means to ensure the sustainability of health care systems.

Regarding his comments about the possible leakage of capital, I would simply suggest that he go back to his provincial government, the Government of Ontario, and clearly say to it that he does not trust it to properly look after the health care system. That is not what people are telling the Bloc Québécois. People are telling the—

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard many members in the House talk about the health file specifically and the federal government's interference in that area. It is obvious that the options put forward by the other parties are, as my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said, aimed at centralizing all health-related matters in Parliament, at that level of government.

But it is clear to Quebeckers that, under the Constitution, health is the exclusive domain of the Quebec and provincial governments. And regardless of the party in power, the Quebec government has repeatedly expressed that in its statements and demands, as well as its concrete actions.

And it is precisely that aspect of the problem that I want to address this afternoon. I am the health critic for the Bloc Québécois. Throughout my entire political and parliamentary career in the House, I have had the opportunity to pit my ideas against those of my colleagues in other political parties. I have also had the opportunity to see how those same colleagues in other political parties in Canada view health care and its future.

One need only consider what the Standing Committee on Health has done in recent months. It studied the whole issue of human resources in the health sector and would have the federal government tell the provinces how to manage their human resources in the health sector. It even went so far as to give the Quebec and provincial governments advice on health education. Under the Constitution, however, education is another area within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec and provincial governments. Once again, we get the sense that our colleagues in other political parties in Canada feel the need to say that this Parliament should have a role in health. And there are other examples.

I can understand them. Any intervention in the health sector has a direct impact on the population. As I have often said, intervention gives them an opportunity to toot their own horn and say that they are doing good work that is helping people. But, from the Bloc Québécois's point view, it is clear that the federal government should do that only in areas under its own jurisdiction.

We see this in various statements, bills, tax measures and budget measures. The government's initiatives belie the promise the Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the Conservative Party, made during the 2006 election campaign to limit the federal spending power. We have seen no sign that he wants to make good on that promise. What we have seen is that with his government's various policies, he has carried on the Liberal tradition of intruding into areas outside federal jurisdiction.

The measure I want to use as an example is extremely worthwhile. It was in Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, which was passed in the House because the Liberals decided to support the Conservative government. They did not have the backbone to get all their members into the House to vote against the budget implementation bill. If this measure had come from a provincial government, it would have been completely fair, because it was directly related to health. But since it comes from the federal government, which has no constitutional jurisdiction over health, we want to know what it is doing in the bill. What the government is doing is interfering.

It is using federal money for initiatives in areas that are outside federal jurisdiction. I will tell hon. members what was in Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, which was passed. The government allocated $13.5 million to the Rick Hansen Foundation, a not-for-profit organization whose goal is to speed progress toward a cure for spinal cord injuries and improve the quality of life of people with such injuries. This is extremely worthwhile and commendable, and it is what health care is all about. People come to us because they are ill and they need support. It is important that the appropriate government take action and develop strategies and programs to address people's needs. It is not up to the federal government to intrude into these jurisdictions because of its spending power.

There are other examples. Organizations that support patient groups, people with specific illnesses, are all calling on the federal government to establish Canada-wide strategies, national strategies, as the government calls them. In the Bloc Québécois, when we talk about anything national we are talking about Quebec, our nation that we are so proud of. These organizations are calling for standards and guidelines at all levels of government to come up with strategies for the entire country that respect the areas of jurisdiction. As I was saying, health is not a federal government jurisdiction.

There is no shortage of examples to illustrate the intrusions, the encroachments and the constant duplication of the federal government, Liberal and Conservative alike, when it comes to the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces over health care. Sections 92.7 and 92.16 of the Constitution Act, 1867 clearly stipulate that health care and social services fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I am referring to the relevant sections just to prove that this is not a party line or my own idea. From as far back as 1919, Ottawa has been intervening increasingly in these sectors, even forcing Quebec and the provinces to comply with so-called national standards and objectives.

I will list a series of events that have occurred since 1919 to show to what extent the federal government has ignored these two sections of the Constitution by interfering in the health care sector. In 1919, the Department of Health was created; in 1957, the federal Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was passed; in 1966, the Medical Care Act was passed; in 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed; in 2004, the Public Health Agency of Canada was created; and in 2007, another commission was created by the federal government to take up even more space in this jurisdiction belonging exclusively to Quebec and the provinces under the Constitution. I am talking about the Canadian Mental Health Commission.

In view of all this, it is clear that the Government of Canada, Liberal and Conservative alike, has decided over time to take its place in the health care sector even though it has no business there.

Like my Bloc Quebecois colleagues have said throughout the afternoon, if the government really wants the people that it represents to have access to better services, it should simply give to the provinces the means they need to carry out this responsibility. Instead of spending this money freely, and rarely in concert with the provinces, it should give it to them, through tax point transfers. This would give Quebec and the provinces the means to adequately carry out their responsibility, which is to give priority to the health of our fellow citizens. Of course, these concerns can also be ours, but the actions that result from these concerns and that are taken in this Parliament must absolutely respect the fact that health is a jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Another aspect of federal interference in health has to do with research and education. By creating research institutes, whose mandate is to provide better health products and services and to strengthen Canada's health system, the government is once again—because of its tendency to always control more—further encroaching upon areas which, under the Constitution, fall outside federal jurisdiction.

The Bloc Quebecois has often said that investments in research are necessary. However, it is important to point out that, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the federal government is giving itself the power to impose its priorities and views on the health sector. This goes way beyond research as such.

I have said repeatedly in the House that the Bloc Quebecois wants the federal government to substantially increase research budgets. We think this money should be transferred to Quebec, so that it can invest it according to its own criteria, and without any condition.

The whole educational component is often connected to research. Education is not a federal jurisdiction. It comes exclusively under the governments of Quebec and the provinces. Therefore, all the money needed to fund our university sector should be distributed by the governments of Quebec and the provinces. That is their responsibility.

As I mentioned, and as my colleagues have said throughout the afternoon, since I am convinced that all hon. members are aware of the importance of this sector, it is crucial that the money be available and that this government adequately carries out this responsibility by transferring tax points to Quebec and the provinces.

Throughout the history of Quebec, governments have taken a stand and demanded that the federal government stop interfering in the health file and stop dictating to Quebec, by its actions, how it should carry out its responsibilities in the area of health.

Governments of all political persuasions, not just sovereignist governments, took this position for Quebec.

Although I have already spoken about this in the House, I would like to do so again. I would like to speak of the different governments that, over the course of Quebec's history, presented specific demands to the federal government in this regard.

Maurice Duplessis' second government—from August 30, 1944 to September 7, 1959—had the following message:

Quebec considers that the following areas are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces: natural resources, the establishment, maintenance and administration of hospitals, asylums and charitable institutions, education in all areas including university studies, the regulation of professions, including the entrance requirements to the practice of medicine and relations between patient and physician, social security, health and public hygiene, the construction of bridges and roads.

Earlier, I gave examples pertaining to human resources management in health care, education, the way in which funds are allocated to our universities, and hence the actions, programs and research our universities must carry out. I also spoke of public health. The government of Maurice Duplessis told the federal government that it was none of its business, that it should look after its own affairs, and to give us our money, the money sent to the federal government, the money that it does not want to give back in order for us to meet our needs. That is what the government of Maurice Duplessis said at the time.

I will also quote another government, the Union Nationale government of Daniel Johnson Sr., in power from June 16, 1966 to September 26, 1968. I would like to highlight the demands and the message of that government with respect to health care and protecting this jurisdiction which, under the Constitution, remains the jurisdiction of Quebec.

To ensure the equality of the French Canadian nation, Quebec needs greater powers. It wants to make its own decisions in certain areas: 1) development of its human resources (i.e. every aspect of education, social security and health); 2) economic affirmation (i.e. the power to implement economic and financial mechanisms); 3) cultural expression (arts, letters and the French language); 4) the influence of the Quebec community.

Even back then, there was talk about every aspect of health, and not small exceptions here and there.

It also said “the power to implement economic and financial mechanisms”. We just have to look at what the federal government wants to do with its Canada-wide securities commission. It wants to undermine Quebec's power to take its economy in its own hands and therefore centralize everything in Toronto once again. Does that not prove that what Daniel Johnson Sr. was saying is still current?

He was also advocating for cultural expression, in the arts, literature and the French language, and that is what we have been constantly asking the House to do: to transfer those powers to Quebec and the funds that come with those powers because Quebec is a strong and creative nation and we need to be able to invest all our resources in those areas.

I would also like to talk about Robert Bourassa, if I may.

After the Meech Lake accord, Robert Bourassa said that under the Canadian Constitution, social and health care issues indisputably fell within the exclusive power of the provinces.

Robert Bourassa also told the federal government to mind its own business. The Bloc Québécois is asking the same thing today.

I hope that all the hon. members of the House have understood the message and will vote in favour of this motion.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, October 7th, 2010]

Yes, as the member for Outremont said, the Prime Minister is quite stubborn. He always wants his own way, and does not want to get to the bottom of things or find an efficient way of adopting bills that are deemed important, as the minister herself said in her speech earlier today.

Now we have Bill C-36. As I said earlier, this bill is essentially a carbon copy of Bill C-6, but they have already incorporated—and it would have been silly not to—the amendments already made in parliamentary committee when Bill C-6 was being studied. Members will recall that Bill C-6 was itself a carbon copy of Bill C-52. The only difference—people will perhaps remember—was that when the government introduced Bill C-52, a number of our constituents had a problem with the fact that natural health products would be subject to this bill.

However, there was a proposal to amend and modify the bill so that natural health products would be exempt. I would like to read subclause 4(3) of the bill:

For greater certainty, this Act does not apply to natural health products as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Natural Health Products Regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act.

This clarification having been made, I would, for the benefit of the House, like to raise some questions and ideas that would be interesting to study during the meetings of the Standing Committee on Health that will be dedicated to studying Bill C-36.

First of all, the preamble to the bill proposes a definition that approaches the precautionary principle:

Whereas

the Parliament of Canada recognizes...

that a lack of full scientific certainty is not to be used as a reason for postponing measures that prevent adverse effects on human health if those effects could be serious or irreversible;

After having read the preamble, we would really like to study compliance with this bill in more detail. What does the government mean by this statement? That is the question we will try to answer during the committee meetings that focus on studying Bill C-36.

The second point I would like to make is about the complementary system regarding the environment. The preamble also gives an overview of consumer products and the environment:

...recognizes that, given the impact activities with respect to consumer products may have on the environment, there is a need to create a regulatory system regarding consumer products that is complementary to the regulatory system regarding the environment;

That is only found in clauses 16 and 17. The Fertilizers Act and the Seeds Act are excluded from this bill. There is one link with the environment in this bill and it deals with disclosure of personal information. We could ask the government if it intends to develop environmental requirements as part of the regulations.

The third aspect, which is fundamental, is self-regulation of the industry. Following the many cases of unsafe food products on our supermarket shelves, the media have exposed some worrisome phenomena, namely the lack of quality control and insufficient labelling on food products imported into Canada. On April 1, a number of newspaper articles reported that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was inspecting barely 2% to 5% of food products and that this low percentage represented nearly 98% of the risk. These statements opened the debate on deficiencies in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's tracking system and on the labelling and food inspection regulations.

When Canada's new food and consumer safety action plan is being reviewed, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the federal government does not delegate food inspection entirely to the industry and that the federal government fulfils its mandate to ensure the safety of food, therapeutic and consumer products.

The recent listeriosis outbreak that has shaken consumer confidence is another example. We have to rectify this immediately for everyone's sake. The Bloc Québécois is urging the federal government to implement stricter food safety standards in order to restore people's confidence in the food they eat. The same standards should apply to consumer product safety.

We completely reject the notion that the industry should regulate itself entirely when it comes to food inspection, as we saw last summer with the listeriosis crisis that resulted from a self-regulation pilot project. We do not want the industry to be wholly in charge of consumer product safety. That goes without saying. Health Canada must continue playing a role in ensuring public health, for instance, by making sure it has enough inspectors to fulfill its mandate.

On that last point, back in 2006, the Auditor General indicated that Health Canada did not have sufficient financial and human resources to carry out its inspection duties. We can have the best possible bill, the best legislation to prevent the public from purchasing products that could be unsafe for themselves or their loved ones, but we still need to take every possible action to ensure that the law is obeyed. We must not allow the industry to be both purveyor and inspector of the same goods. That would be absurd, although, I must admit, no company wants to see its name in huge bold letters splashed across the front pages of newspapers, saying that it put unsafe products on store shelves.

Clearly, all stakeholders know that for everyone's sake, consumer products that pose a risk to public health must not find their way onto our store shelves. The fact remains that we need ways to ensure compliance with the law and to make sure that the industry does not put the people who provide consumer products to the public in charge of overseeing the safety and security of those products.

The fourth point I would like to discuss, and which we will address in committee, pertains to the regulations. Bill C-36 frequently refers to measures that the minister may take with respect to regulations. Broad regulatory powers are also mentioned in clause 6, as well as clause 37. The Bloc Québécois has questions about several aspects of the regulations provided for in the bill.

We must ask some important questions. Given the minister's discretionary power, how would the recall be carried out and for what reasons could she decide to not recall a product in certain cases? How will the minister decide that a product is dangerous? It is a matter of common sense, and we must have an answer before the bill is brought into force. On a few occasions when considering a bill, the members of the Standing Committee on Health agreed that the minister would have to provide a certain number of regulations to convey how she intended to interpret, through the regulations, the bill to be passed by Parliament.

Also, what parameters would the minister use in deciding to recall one product but not another? In this regard, we still have questions, and we hope that the minister or the officials will explain their intentions to the committee, and that the officials will also be able to provide more information about the pending regulations.

It is clear that this bill will receive quick passage through second reading since we have unanimously agreed to it. My colleagues on the Standing Committee on Health and I are looking forward to a more in-depth study of Bill C-36 in the days to come.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, October 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as most hon. members here know, when a government bill is introduced, the same member cannot deliver a speech more than once at each stage. Therefore, at second reading stage, like today, it would normally not be possible to speak more than once to this bill, an act respecting the safety of consumer products. In the present case, it will be possible because this is the third time this bill is being introduced by this same government. Why is this so? Because the Prime Minister said so. He decided, through various manoeuvres, to draw out the debate on this much anticipated and necessary bill.

That is why, when I read the Minister of Health's press release that was printed and distributed on June 7, 2010, I could not help but laugh. I will read an excerpt:

“The safety and well-being of Canadian families and children remain a top priority for our government,” said [the Minister of Health]. “Canada's current product safety law is now over 40 years old and we need to do more to update and improve this law to help protect our families from harmful products.”

About four years ago today, the Auditor General pointed out the problem and emphasized that we should redouble our efforts to modernize this old legislation going back 40 years. She submitted a report in November 2006 that showed the Government of Canada was aware of the risks that consumers were running as a result of the lack of funding for the product safety program and knew that managers could not comply with their mandates. That was in November 2006. So what happened after that? Let me summarize the period of time since November 2006.

In the summer of 2007, thousands of toys made in China were recalled by their manufacturers because of the lead they contained. The Bloc Québécois said at the time that the minister should act without delay to tighten the safety requirements for dangerous products in order to prohibit the manufacture, promotion and marketing of any product entailing an unacceptable risk of harmful effects to health.

Although the Auditor General made her determination in November 2006, it was not until December 2007 that the government announced—not that a bill was being introduced—but that an action plan had been created to ensure the safety of food and consumer products. The government promised a bill in the days or weeks or months to come. It finally appeared in April 2008. A year and a half had passed, therefore, between the Auditor General’s findings and Bill C-52.

You know something about this, Mr. Speaker, because you were affected like all of us. The bill was prevented from continuing through all the stages of the legislative process and becoming much-needed legislation because in September 2008—despite the fine fixed-date election bill the Prime Minister had decided to introduce and get passed—he decided, because he was the Prime Minister and could use his prerogative, to call a general election and slam the doors on Parliament. Never mind the very necessary and important bills that are pending, let us have an election. That was in September 2008. So the process for passing this bill on the safety of consumer products was dragged out even longer.

In January 2009, once the election campaign and the Christmas holidays were over, C-6, essentially a carbon copy of Bill C-52, was introduced.

The only thing that happened at the end of January was that the bill was introduced. Actual debate began only in April 2009. Once again, there were delays. I can tell you that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health was not where the process was dragged out, because in five meetings we were able to hear all the people involved and all the people with an interest in the issue. Amendments were presented and we managed to find common ground among all the parliamentarians on the committee. However, we did not make it to the end of the legislative process for the bill, because in December 2009, Parliament was prorogued. The Prime Minister, again because he is the Prime Minister and he has the power to do it, decided to shut down Parliament, to leave us in our constituencies and not to allow the House of Commons to complete the entire legislative process then underway, and in particular the process of passing the consumer products safety bill, a bill that, I repeat, is necessary and one that people are waiting for.

In March 2010, Parliament returned. But did the government introduce the bill? No, it waited a few months. In June 2010, Bill C-36 was introduced, the one we have before us and that we will be debating today and in the days that follow. And since June, have we been debating this bill, a bill that is needed and that people are waiting for? No, we have been waiting, we let the summer go by, and here we are on October 7, debating it at second reading.

It is somewhat odd that we had to wait four years and still not have passed it, and be starting, once again, to consider passing the bill, a bill that has, in general, the agreement of the parliamentarians in this House. This is cause for concern, to say the least. That is why I smiled a little when I read this paragraph from the minister. A little farther on in the same news release, the minister tells us that she looks forward to speaking with us about the bill in greater detail in the coming days. We have had to wait until October for her to address the subject in this House.

Furthermore, we are falling behind, and everyone knows it. Earlier, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons had to rise and ask for unanimous consent to have only one round of speeches. Everyone knows that we are behind, but if the government, headed by the Prime Minister, truly—

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government lets foreign food products into the country without making sure they are safe, yet our own agricultural producers and processors face extremely restrictive standards. And we expect them to compete with those products price-wise.

When will the government decide to impose a reciprocal policy? What comes into the country should be of the same quality as what we produce here.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, according to an internal audit, there are “deficiencies” in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's oversight system when it comes to imported foods. The report mentions “multiple areas of risk” that need to be dealt with using drastic measures.

Can the minister explain why the situation is getting worse despite additional funding for the agency?

[Health Care System, September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, over the next hour this evening, we will be discussing health. Before we begin, I would like to sincerely thank all those who, in their everyday lives, make others aware of the different illnesses that can affect them, and of the importance of adopting a healthy lifestyle. The people who volunteer or work on these types of activities are quite simply remarkable. It is important for us to remember that.

This evening, I would like to particularly thank an organization called PROCURE, because this week is Prostate Cancer Awareness Week. The people of PROCURE work tirelessly to promote awareness of this illness, which affects many people. In fact, 25,000 people every year are diagnosed with prostate cancer. It is very important to highlight the wonderful contribution of these volunteers, in particular the founding chairman, Marvyn Kussner, and also Cédric Bisson, the chairman of the board, as well as all of the volunteers who make up the board of directors. I would also like to highlight the extraordinary work of Jean Pagé, the spokesperson for PROCURE, and a well-known personality in Quebec.

As you know, PROCURE organizes an annual walk. This was its fourth year and it is clear to the organizers and creators of this event, Father John Walsh and Robin Burns, that the PROCURE Walk of Courage has become a huge success. And this year, including the PROCURE Tour of Courage that was launched by an accomplished triathlete, Laurent Proulx, $444,000 was raised. In addition, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, jumped on his bike to help this great cause. I was there in June with some colleagues and it was wonderful to see the hundreds of walkers and cyclists coming together to join in the fight against prostate cancer.

Once again, I would like to salute all of the volunteers as well as the paid staff, Claudine Couture-Trudel and Javier Rivera, for the excellent work they are doing to educate the public. I would also like to mention the excellent work done by the doctors who participate in the Biobank collection network.

Getting back to motion M-513 by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, I would first of all like to read the final press release of the annual conference of federal-provincial-territorial ministers of health, held in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, on September 14, 2010. I will just read the first sentence of the second paragraph:

Ministers endorsed* a Declaration on Prevention and Promotion that will guide their efforts to promote healthy living across Canada.

The asterisk refers to the following text:

It should be noted that although Quebec shares the general goals of the Declaration and Framework for Action, it was not involved in developing them and does not subscribe to a Canada-wide strategy in this area. Quebec intends to remain solely responsible for developing and implementing programs for promoting healthy living within its territory. However, Quebec does intend to continue exchanging information and expertise with other governments in Canada.

How can Quebec adopt its own guidelines and not participate in the Declaration and Framework for Action? Quite simply because health is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

I am convinced that my colleague will not be surprised. If I told her that I would be voting in favour of the motion, she would probably fall off her chair. I will prevent this—as I do not want her to hurt herself—by telling her that I will be voting against her motion for the simple reason that, once again, the member is obviously attempting to interfere and to ensure that the federal government has a greater say in what the provinces should do to fulfill their responsibilities in the area of health care.

It is interesting to see how, in some instances, the Conservative members formally acknowledge that health and health care delivery are the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and, in others, they try by various means to do the opposite of what they maintain about Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction.

I truly wonder what is behind this doublespeak, this double standard. Experience tells me that when the government gets a hot potato, it tends to lob it to the provinces. However, when it comes to looking good or boasting, it makes more sense to the government to play a more important role in determining what is best in terms of health care and establishing a framework to promote healthy lifestyles.

To hear my Liberal or NDP colleagues, it has always been clear to them that “Ottawa knows best”. It does not bother them when the federal government just happens to interfere in jurisdictions that belong to Quebec and the provinces under the Constitution. For the Conservatives it is doublespeak and a double standard. This evening, we are hearing the usual Canadian discourse. In other words, this government should tell the provinces what to do about health care and determining strategies for health care delivery.

However, the Bloc Québécois has always been clear. It is important to ensure that all our constituents can benefit from the best health care services. All our electors say the same thing. Health care remains a priority to them. However, if the federal government truly wanted to play an important role in health, it would address the underfunding related to the fiscal imbalance, which denies Quebec and the provinces the necessary revenue to properly assume their responsibilities. The government would give the provinces all the means to assume their full responsibility in terms of delivering services and establishing the best ways to treat illnesses.

I simply want to say to my colleague that, unfortunately, in the case before us, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to her motion.

[Multiple Sclerosis, June 14th, 2010]

Madam Chair, my colleague did not have enough time to ask me her question. It seems silly to answer a question that has not been asked. However, she made reference to Dr. Zamboni. Tomorrow in the subcommittee we will have the opportunity hear Dr. Zamboni, who may shed new light on his study and his findings. For now, everything we know about Dr. Zamboni we read in the literature. I am anxious to hear his testimony tomorrow.

Again, my colleague is right to say that notwithstanding all our debates and our speeches, we know that life is not easy for people with multiple sclerosis.

[Multiple Sclerosis, June 14th, 2010]

Madam Chair, my colleague is quite right. We heard very moving, very personal testimony at subcommittee from witnesses who told us about the helplessness they felt and how they regained control of their lives following treatment. As I was saying earlier, this testimony has been compiled in the committee records. So the people who are responsible for deciding whether this treatment will be administered, that is, those responsible in the provinces and territories, can certainly refer to those records when making their decision.

As I was saying earlier, in the context of our deliberations, we must not give the impression that this decision will be made here. That is not the case. And if our questions and our speeches give the opposite impression, this might create expectations that we cannot fulfill as federal parliamentarians.