44th Parl. 1st Sess.

February 16, 2023 10:00AM

Context: House Hansard - 162 - Feb/16/23

Feb/16/23 11:48:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with my mentor, the member for Rivière-du-Nord. I think that having a discussion about the role of private health care is a great way to distinguish between certain ideological positions. On the one hand, there are those who think of themselves as social democrats or progressives, even if the latter term is a bit overused. On the other hand, there are people who have more of a neo-liberal vision, inspired by classical liberalism, where positions are often structured around an idyllic vision of the market; it is all about the market. When we talk about the role of private health care, these divisions always come to the fore. I say this because we, in the Bloc Québécois, tend to define ourselves as progressives, as social democrats, much like NDP members do. For example, one way to try and define progressives, social democrats, is to look at some of the struggles that have taken place. I am thinking about the fight for better wealth distribution, allowing for equal opportunities, which is more structured by the state. I am thinking about the struggles that women and the labour movement face. I would even say that a progressive is someone who defends secularism. I doubt my NDP colleagues would agree. Indeed, the issue of state neutrality often comes up in discussions about progressivism. What I am getting at is that Quebec is probably one of the most progressive societies in Canada. Look at the choices that Quebec has made. Child care was put in place in 1997. Canada has just implemented it, more than 20 years later. The same can be said of parental leave and pharmacare. In my opinion, Quebec's government and society is a bit more progressive than Canada. That is Quebec's choice. I would like to make a distinction. I see what the NDP is trying to do with this motion. The Bloc Québécois will be voting against it, but when we do, members will say that the Bloc Québécois is not progressive and that it is in favour of more privatized health care. However, that is not the case. That explanation is too simplistic. I do not want to accuse my NDP colleagues of populism. We know what populism means. It often involves using overly simplistic explanations to try to describe complex realities. Health care in Canada is a complex reality. The fact that we are against this motion does not necessarily mean that we are in favour of giving the private sector a bigger place in the health care system. I want to point out that the difference between the NDP's progressiveness and the Bloc Québécois's is that the NDP's progressiveness involves a centralizing, predatory federalism. I want members to remember that. I do not want to use any bad words, but we have to call a spade a spade. It is a federalism that is always trying to infringe on provincial jurisdictions. When I take a closer look at the NDP motion, what I ultimately see is paternalism, but I will come back to that. Ottawa thinks it knows best. We, the legislators in the House here in Ottawa, are supposed to explain to the provinces how the health care system works and we are the ones who see things clearly. That is basically how the NDP motion reads to me. This motion is also pretty Ontario-centric, and I will simply point out in passing that it is yet another illustration of the fact that the NDP is rather disconnected from Quebec. Let us move on quickly to the next thing. What should my colleagues have done if they truly cared about the health care issue? They should have tackled the main problem, which is a structural one. The problem that we face today is a structural one, where health care is affected by the financial withdrawal of the federal government. Guess what? The fiscal imbalance has provided extensive documentation of this withdrawal. If my NDP colleagues were serious, they would have looked at the issue of fiscal imbalance and at the federal government's withdrawal. Here is an example. In the 1990s, in 1996-97, the federal government made ongoing cuts of $2.5 billion to provincial transfers. Lucien Bouchard was premier of Quebec at the time. He had to deal with these cuts, which completely destabilized Quebec's health care system. His critics were quick to paint him as a neo-liberal politician because he made cuts to health care. However, at the same time that he was creating a $5 child care system and implementing a family policy, he was being strangled by the federal government and forced to cut health care services to the public. That is the kind of predatory federalism that I was talking about earlier. I am coming back to the fiscal imbalance because I would simply like to provide the definition that really speaks to me. It is the one that was included in the Séguin report. It states that the provinces' spending structure is such that expenditures grow faster than the economy, while those of the federal government grow at roughly the same pace. Furthermore, when it wants to adjust its spending, the federal government can just unilaterally cut transfers to the provinces, without any political fallout. “Without any political fallout” worked for Paul Martin in the 1990s. He balanced his budget on the backs of the provinces. Who paid the political price? It was the various premiers and health ministers in Quebec, who were held responsible for the shortfall in the health care system because Ottawa choked the resources. The NDP's response to something like the fiscal imbalance is to say that funding for the provinces should come with conditions. To me, that is quintessential predatory federalism. I did not make up that term. It came from a health minister from Quebec who was a Liberal and had absolutely nothing to do with sovereignists and separatists. The fiscal imbalance has been documented in a fairly impartial manner. I am thinking in particular of the Conference Board of Canada, which has shown in many studies that if nothing is done by 2030-31, the provinces will collapse under the weight of deficits, while the federal government will be swimming in surpluses. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has also demonstrated this many times. When I look at the NDP motion, I see direct interference in provincial jurisdictions. Health is not the purview of the House of Commons. Naturally, in Quebec and other provinces, governments may take approaches that are controversial, but that is democracy. If people are not satisfied with the actions of their legislatures, they can run for a seat there. If health care is the real concern of my NDP colleagues, they can stand for election in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan or Manitoba and tackle the health care system. That certainly does not fall to the House of Commons. I want to conclude by highlighting the predatory federalism we can see in the NDP proposals. Imposing national standards on long-term care facilities is interference. Hiring health care workers is interference. Investing in mental health and preventing the use of private health care, which is the basis of their motion, is again interference. To add insult to injury, if the New Democrats had done their homework, and I am sure my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord will elaborate on this, they would have looked at the Chaoulli decision and realized that if they want to go against the provinces in the delivery of health care, they have two options. One option is to use the notwithstanding clause that they condemned last week in the debate on one of our opposition motions.

1330 words

All Topics

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 162