Mario Laframboise

[Gasoline Tax, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since 1995, the federal government has collected a special tax of 1.5¢ per litre of gas, supposedly to help reduce the deficit, even if there has not been a deficit since 1998.

Given that there has not been a deficit since 1998, can the Minister of Finance tell us how the $740 million that he took from Quebec drivers was used?

[Infrastructure Program, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the federal government is refusing to include a $50 million to $80 million sum in the infrastructure program for highway 30. However, during the last election, a gaggle of federal ministers, headed by Alfonso Gagliano, made a firm announcement committing $357 million, saying that it was a done deal.

Rather than resorting to trickery in order to pay less, does the Minister of Transport plan on following through on the announcements made by his colleagues during the last election, and will he make the money available quickly, as promised?

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his question. As health critic for our party, he obviously is quite familiar with this issue.

Since health care accounts for 34%, which is a third, of the budget of Quebec--about the same as in the other provinces--with an annual increase of 5.2%, this represents a lot of employees, and management and administration are required.

At this point in time, properly reorganizing the system would require new money. Employees need to understand that there are better resources available that would lead to better services. We can reorganize and remodel the whole system and that can be done at the same time.

For two years now, the Government of Quebec has been looking at reorganizing the system, and I think they know how to go about it. What is needed to get all the employees on board is new money, which should come from the federal government.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. It is deplorable.

The problem with the federal Liberal members is that once they are in Ottawa, they totally lose touch with the public. It is as simple as that. They live in a bubble and are power hungry. Every day they hope to get new powers because they think they do not have enough.

I am not surprised that a former Liberal MNA from Quebec came to Ottawa and told us he would not have acted this way in Quebec. In fact, he would have voted according to the party line. If he had remained in Quebec and if he had never set foot in the House, he would have voted the same as his colleagues in the National Assembly of Quebec. What the public wants is simple: money for health. That is what everyone in Quebec wants.

The problem with the federal Liberal members is that they are out of touch with the people of Quebec.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on the motion put forward by my hon. colleague. Sometimes, politics has its reasons, which have nothing to do with logic. I will attempt to show the Liberal Party of Canada's lack of logic, something that has been one of its characteristics since its early days.

People go into politics for a reason. Before coming to this House, I was in municipal politics for 18 years prior to 2000. In November 2000, I had the privilege of being elected by my constituents to represent them. Those listening, as well as my colleagues, former colleagues, mayors and councillors have, over the past decade, since the early 1990s, experienced the domino effect of the federal cuts, which led to the fiscal imbalance.

This is what fiscal imbalance is all about. In fact, the federal government dropped its funding in certain areas. The imbalance in health is an example. I do not want to repeat what my hon. colleagues have said in this House. However, it should be noted that, in the early 1990s, the federal government was oaying 22% of health care costs. When the system was created in the early 1960s, the federal government was paying 50% of health care costs. It was a cost-shared program. It was split fifty-fifty. At the time, the provinces and the federal government were not quarrelling. It was simple. The federal government transferred funds and the provinces provided the services.

Things got complicated because, since the early 1990s, the federal government, which should not have gotten involved in health care, of all things, started announcing to the provinces from one year to the next, “Next year, I am going to cut transfer payments, because I have accumulated a deficit”. And it was not just the Conservatives who racked up the deficits. The Liberals did their part in creating deficits in Canada. I will not reopen the debate on this issue.

Nevertheless, the federal government decided that, in an attempt to counteract this, it would slash health care transfer payments. This of course had a domino effect on all stakeholders in the Quebec community, as well as in the provinces. Repercussions were felt all across Canada. Provinces offloaded responsibilities onto municipalities and school boards. This just added to the burden. Let us not kid ourselves, there is only one person paying for all this. There is only one taxpayer.

Obviously, taxpayers are the ones footing the bill. That is what happened back in 1992, and I can understand that today the Quebec Liberal Party, the Parti Quebecois and the Action Démocratique are unanimous in telling the feds “Listen now, we are short of money for health. When this whole health care system was created, you were involved. Back in the 1960s, you were paying 50%. Then by the early 1990s, it was 22%. Basically, what the Romanow report recommends is to get back to having the federal government invest more or less what it did in the early 1990s.

In the meantime, municipalities within the provinces were the ones getting it in the neck, along with the school boards. In 1992, we had the Ryan report, which landed the municipalities with $200 million in bills. My former colleagues, municipal councillors and mayors, will remember those days. Then there was the Trudel reform, started by the Parti Quebecois, which dumped $360 million in bills onto the municipalities.

The purpose of all this was to be able to keep a health care system in the provinces that was still more or less adequate. So this was what brought about all the imbalance. Ottawa cut its transfers to the provinces for health, and health budgets went up. Now there is unanimity in Quebec for the first time in history. Minister Legault clearly acknowledges that there is a shortfall in health funding. All the health critics accept this, saying, “For once, a Quebec minister is acknowledging that he is short $1.8 billion for health”. On top of that, every year, 5.2% needs to be added to the health budget, a budget that totals some $16 billion to $17 billion.

That comes out to $800 million a year that needs to be added in order to maintain an adequate health care system in Quebec.

So I can understand why all of the members of the National Assembly in Quebec, all of the parties together, are saying to the federal government, “Listen, we do not need you to tell us how to spend money on health care. The Government of Quebec has been the one providing services in Quebec since the health care system was created”.

Meanwhile, the federal government, which should have been providing adequate support, cut back. It went from 22% to 14%. It is being asked to return to 22%, and now it wants to set all kinds of conditions, because it has decided to put money back into health. Something is not quite right.

The federal government had no power before and the Province of Quebec is prepared to recognize the powers that it negotiated over the years. All that is missing is the money. The health care system has been studied at least three times in the last ten years, with all of the stakeholders, commission after commission, including the Clair commission; and all that is being asked for is additional funding.

Anyone who has anything to do with the health care system, including sick people, men and women who are in hospitals and who are waiting for this money to help solve their problems, people in emergency rooms and everyone listening today, is obviously conscious of the fact that all that is lacking in the system is money.

The Romanow commission has said that the federal government must provide money, but that there needs to be conditions. This is what always upsets me in this House, especially coming from the Liberal Party.

First of all, the Liberals never have problems, never. Know why? Because if they say there is a problem, then they have to solve it. That is the problem. Right now there is a problem and my colleagues are absolutely right. There is a problem because all the provincial premiers have come together and are now advertising in every province, or at least in Quebec, and I know that Ontario is too. They are advertising so that people will get the message, “Look, the federal government is paying 14 cents out of every dollar”. Therefore, the federal government is paying 14% and the provinces are paying 86%.

The federal Liberal members are not in this House to defend the interests of the public; they are here to make the public understand the interests of their government. There is a difference.

For instance, there is no problem granting sponsorships and giving money to their friends or establishing a gun control system that exceeds the estimated cost by $1 billion. It is no big deal.

However, currently in the House, we are talking about human lives, men and women who expect that the federal government is going to restore the funding for all health care networks, regardless of the province.

I can understand all the members of the National Assembly of Quebec standing together, setting party politics aside and saying to the federal government, “You have to give the money unconditionally, because the sick want unconditional money and they want unconditional services”. That is all we are asking.

This is still asking too much from the federal Liberals, who would rather have the public believe that it does not really have any needs. Yet another network of bureaucracy will be established.

It may be true that there are problems with bureaucracy in the provinces, but the bigger the organization, the bigger the problems. This is something we have been witnessing daily for almost two years. Look at the size of the federal system and at what it costs. Sponsorships, gun control and so on are unmanageable. The bigger it is, the more difficult it is to control. That cannot work.

We do not want to fight, and it is not the provinces that are fighting right now; it is the federal government that wants to establish an administrative level again, when everyone is telling it, “What we want is money for the sick. We do not want to establish a new administrative system”. No one wants that, except for them.

It will probably be 12 to 18 months before any thought is given to this. During that time, they will save money and can give some to their friends.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to answer my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.

I have trouble understanding what he is saying. When he tells me it is the provinces that will pay the total cost of applying the Kyoto protocol, I hope this is not true. I understand that the Progressive Conservative Party is like the Liberal Party and the Canadian Alliance. It makes the provinces pay for everything. That much I understand.

Perhaps it is time for us to come together and for the federal government to tell the provinces from the start that “We will pay our share to implement Kyoto”. Then maybe there will be less pressure on the provinces and they will be more open to listening to their residents. Again, I would like to point out that Quebeckers and Canadians want Kyoto to be ratified. We will be there to support them.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Members will understand, of course, that ratification of the Kyoto protocol is totally independent from the implementation plan that will be negotiated by the different stakeholders in Quebec and in Canada.

We will have the time to sit down and look at the situation. What we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are saying is that, concerning the objectives that we are being asked to achieve with the Kyoto protocol, Quebec is able and feels ready to achieve them and seriously believes that Canada is also ready to achieve them.

We know that we will have to take very important steps and decisions, but I believe that the federal government has the power and the means to implement its ideas. Inevitably, when the plan is implemented, we will see automatically the impacts and we will seek to compensate the industries.

As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Quebecois will be there to support all the measures that this government has to take to compensate industry during the period it needs to redirect its investments, to actually allow it to comply with the Kyoto protocol.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. First, I want to mention that I will split my time with the hon. member for Lotbinière—L'Érable.

The House of Commons must be a reflection of the society that we represent, of the men and women who have elected us to represent them. Of course, I want to properly represent my constituents and, as we know, Quebeckers are overwhelmingly in favour of ratifying Kyoto. They are also very concerned by climate change and global warming, as they are by the ozone layer and, of course, by greenhouse gas emissions.

As parliamentarians, we have a dutynot only to find out what our constituents want, but also to think about future generations. It would be very ill-advised and irresponsible on our part not to defend the Kyoto protocol immediately.

All too often, for purely speculative and financial reasons, decisions are made in this House in the interests of political lobbying groups. The Canadian Alliance is currently playing that card. It is the same thing with the Progressive Conservative Party and with some Liberal members. We heard some of them earlier in the House. Let us avoid falling too easily into the trap of protecting investments in the short term. Instead, let us think about our planet, about what we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.

This is why we must, considering all the positive things that we have heard for years about the Kyoto protocol, ratify this accord. It goes without saying that discussions must take place. We must see to it that this protocol is implemented. There will be an obligation for Canada, and for the other countries ratifying the Kyoto protocol, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6%, based on the 1990 levels. This is the obligation we are undertaking to meet.

Countries that signed on have not been given unrealistic targets. They are reachable. What is irresponsible is to do what the United States, among others, is doing, and not care about global warming. That is totally irresponsible. One day, the Americans will understand the harm they will have caused to our planet and the kind of world they will leave behind for their children and grandchildren. Why follow them blindly, like some parties in this House want to do? Why say, “If the Americans are not signing, we are not signing either”?

We have a beautiful vast country. Quebec is home to more than 7 million people. Canada is also a vast country. It has 30 million inhabitants and covers a vast territory. The environment that we will leave behind to future generations makes it worth ratifying Kyoto and then getting together to look at how we are going to implement it.

In this regard, the rest of Canada would certainly benefit from following Quebec's lead. I will give some statistics. From 1990 to 2000, Quebec increased its greenhouse gas emissions by only 4.4%. That is a fact. There is, within Canada, a very important entity that represents one quarter of the country's population, namely Quebec. This is why, last October, the National Assembly of Quebec decided unanimously to support ratification of the Kyoto protocol by the Government of Canada.

Why? Because Quebec is an example to follow. Instead of saying all kinds of things about what could happen, why not look at what Quebec has achieved?

With its 4.4% rise since 1990, it is prepared for full ratification and for a 6% reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions, compared to its 1990 levels, which would total the considerable figure of 10%.

Elected representatives in the province of Quebec will have some hard choices to make. But if there are hard choices to be made in Quebec, there must be hard choices required across Canada. It is unavoidable, under the circumstances. Some jobs will be lost and some investments displaced.

I see the situation with Kyoto as being comparable to the early days of the ISO standards. The day that manufacturers, who are the job generators, approve Kyoto, their markets will become global. This is reality. It is to these business owners' advantage.

We in the House must stop putting ourselves in the place of companies listed on the stock market, which will see their stock values drop as soon as Kyoto is ratified. We will see that they will come back up again in short order and everything will be back to normal. It is not true that companies and individuals will lose fortunes because Kyoto is implemented. On the contrary. Companies will invest in other areas. Those involved in energy will opt for investments in renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.

Business goes where the money is, where the profits are. When the profit lies with companies that have approved Kyoto, then that is where the business will go, and where the investors of Canada and Quebec will choose to put their money. I have confidence in them, because they have already proven themselves capable of coming through several recessions.

I have trouble understanding the Liberals' stand. There is an unprecedented crisis in softwood lumber, yet the industry is getting no help, and now today they are telling us Kyoto ought not to be ratified. Why? Because we are not prepared to help some companies that might perhaps experience some problems. That is the role of government. That is where a government needs to step in.

When a decision is reached in the House, if certain kinds of businesses were to experience problems because of regulations or bills that might be enacted, then that is when the government has a duty to step in to help. The Bloc Quebecois will always be there to support any plans to help get certain categories of industries back on their feet, while they undergo short-term reversals while taking the time to turn to different investments. We will be there to support any and all assistance policies, should any businesses be affected by ratification of Kyoto.

Let us give a beacon of hope to future generations. Let us, here in this House, be able to truly say that we made a decision for our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren. The men and women in this House who ratified the Kyoto protocol will be looked upon with pride. This would probably be the best decision that we could ever make for the future of generations to come.

I do not understand why there are still entire political parties that decide, with their noses in their books, to look at businesses on the stock exchange that might lose money if we made a decision tomorrow morning.

Our job is not to defend private interests. Too many decisions have been made in this chamber precisely to defend the interests of private companies and submit to the pressure from political lobbying.

Let us make a real decision for the future of our children and our children's children. Some day, when we are sitting quietly in our living rooms and see what we have done to help stop global warming and climate change, we will be proud of those who took part in this decision for the future.

I encourage all my colleagues in the House to follow the lead that citizens have shown us in poll after poll. Quebeckers and even Canadians support ratification of the Kyoto protocol. They are conscious that we truly must change our way of acting and even the way we get around.

Quebec will have some big decisions to make, because the lion's share of greenhouse gas pollution in Quebec is caused by transportation. Quebeckers will have to rethink the way they travel, the vehicles they drive and their choice of equipment, to ensure that we will always be as close as possible to reality and that we leave future generations with a healthy planet.

[Airline Industry, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today the Air Transport Association of Canada denounced special charges and taxes. These extra costs are reducing travel demand and undermining Canadian competitiveness. In 2001-02 alone, Ottawa took $308 million out of the airline industry and only reinvested $77 million in the industry, the rest having disappeared into the government's general revenues.

Will the Minister of Finance listen to the demands of the Air Transport Association of Canada and take immediate measures, including lowering the $24 security charge, imposing a moratorium on the fuel excise tax and eliminating the GST on—

[Hazardous Products Act, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, in this debate today on Bill C-260, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act by adding fire-safe cigarettes to the list of protective measures provided for in the act.

Obviously, this seems quite simple. Understandably, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill for the simple reason that it better protects the population. Many fires are started by smokers who fall asleep, obviously putting their lives, and the lives of their family in danger, as well as causing damage to their property. Often neighbours are also at risk, because when a fire starts in an apartment block, or anywhere for that matter, the whole building has to be evacuated because of a fire started by a careless smoker who has fallen asleep while smoking in bed.

Therefore, the bill is simple. It is only two pages long, and adds cigarettes that are not fire-safe to the list of hazardous products. It calls for regulations. The technology has been proven. Other colleagues here have mentioned that the State of New York passed a regulation in 2000 requiring all cigarette manufacturers to produce or market fire-safe cigarettes by 2003, which would eliminate the risk of fire started by careless smokers.

This seems to be an obvious change. The federal government has invested all kinds of money in printing all kinds of messages on cigarette packaging and so on, to try to discourage people from smoking, and today, and for several years now, members of the House of Commons have introduced a bill to virtually eliminate the risk of fires caused by careless people who fall asleep while smoking. And yet this bill has not yet been passed. Why?

It is simple. The cigarette lobby is still behind the Liberal government. That is where the tragedy lies as far as all these good ideas from private members are concerned. Once again a member has introduced this bill under his name and, I repeat, it ought to be automatically adopted. We should all agree with it. Marketing fire-safe cigarettes, which could protect the lives of the citizens we represent, the people of Quebec, should have happened years ago. But once again, this bill has not been passed.

To give a few examples, in 1992 alone, 68 deaths, 385 injuries, $37 million in damage and 3,199 fires were attributed to careless smokers who fell asleep for one reason or another. Those figures, which have been known since 1992, ought to have led to the adoption that very year of a bill that would have introduced fire-safe cigarettes, since the technology is available.

I fully agree, and the Bloc Quebecois is going to agree, with this bill, which adds cigarettes that are not fire safe to the list of hazardous products. It is high time cigarettes were considered hazardous products. We are all affected by them. Let us not imagine that the 3,199 fires in 1992 were the last. I am sure there have been more every year since. Just try to imagine how much that costs in insurance, the impact of fires caused by cigarettes on the premiums paid by all Quebecers and all Canadians,

All Quebeckers and Canadians pay for this. They pay for the fact that large companies market hazardous products, namely highly inflammable cigarettes, when we know that there are technologies that could allow them to produce fire-safe cigarettes.

All of us in this House have a duty to support this bill, to pass it as quickly as possible, so that it can be implemented at the earliest opportunity and we can see a difference on home insurance premiums, in Quebec and in Canada.

This is what being a parliamentarian is all about. Once we know that a new technology exists, and since we also know that cigarettes cause very serious harm to people—including death and injuries—and significant material damage, it is our duty to propose bills in this House and to vote so that these bills are directly implemented and all Quebeckers and Canadians, whom we represent, benefit from them.

Bill C-260, which amends the Hazardous Products Act and which seeks to add to the list of prohibited products cigarettes that are not fire-safe, is an urgent measure. It is an urgent measure for the quality of life of those who are listening to us and whom we represent here. It is an urgent measure because these people are paying more through insurance premium increases and rent increases. Many people in Quebec and in Canada are renting. These people must realize that insurance premiums are included in the rent that they must pay.

Therefore, if, through our action, the cost of rent can go down, this will bode well for the future. If we succeed in making insurance premiums go down by amending the legislation, as proposed in Bill C-260, this will inevitably impact on the cost of renting, and it will benefit all Quebeckers and Canadians.

I could read all the good that can be said about this bill, but I will read all the bad that could be said if it was not passed by this House instead. That is the catastrophe. For several years, the Liberal Party has been under pressure from the industry because, inevitably, when a new technology is introduced, there are additional costs, and that is only normal. This cost will be added to the cost of cigarettes, and the price of cigarettes will increase accordingly. That is all.

Those who smoke will be able to tell people that they are now using a product that is fire safe and not harmful to the health of those around them. Of course, as we know, cigarettes remain harmful to human health. This point has been made over and over. Not only are they harmful to smokers and those who exposed to second-hand smoke, but cigarettes endanger human life because there are too many careless smokers who fall asleep while smoking and cause fires. We must join forces and support a bill designed to put on the market fire-safe cigarettes. Again, the effect would be that fires started by careless smokers who, all too often, fall asleep while smoking would be practically eliminated.

Since I am being given the signal that my speaking time is almost up, l will conclude. As one could guess, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-260 being passed. We hope that this can be as soon as possible, because the purpose of the bill is to include in the list of prohibited products any cigarettes that are not fire safe. We in the Bloc Quebecois will therefore support Bill C-260.