44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 6, 2024 11:00AM
- May/6/24 11:16:33 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for moving this motion and I commend him on his speech. It is good. We will be voting in favour of the motion. As he said, all of the parties support it. However, I would like to ask him whether the motion is sufficient.
Part (b) of the motion suggests that maybe it is not. Unfortunately, there is no getting around the fact that the Liberal government has been dragging its feet on this from the beginning. It took a lot of pressure from the opposition for the government to finally launch a commission of inquiry into interference. We are starting to see results from that, but the work is not yet finished. What does the member have to say about that? What more could be done?
I would like him to talk about the foreign agent registry, which the government has talked a lot about but has not yet produced any results.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the minister when he said to allow this House to do its work. Allowing the House do its work also means not limiting debate. I know the minister to be a reasonable man. Is he not embarrassed to be limiting debate?
Bill C‑64 includes some extremely important powers. There is a danger. No one will be surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois is against encroachment, against jurisdictional overlap, against what will likely be a waste of public funds on administrative redundancy. I think it is important to take the time to debate this properly.
Is the minister not embarrassed to be limiting the time for debate?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:33:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, and I want to share a secret: I find it difficult to sit with the NDP members. I should start by saying that, for the most part, they are very nice and I get along well with them. Our values are very similar. The problem is that they are not sitting in the right Parliament. The notion of areas of jurisdiction seems abstract to them. They cannot seem to grasp that concept.
Perhaps it is because they are not from Quebec and they do not understand that, in Quebec, the Quebec government plays a greater role in people's lives than other provincial governments. I find it difficult because we often find ourselves voting differently, even though we share the same values and agree on the fundamentals.
The question I would like to ask my colleague is this. Considering that, through the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, the matter of group purchasing to reduce drug costs has already been settled and therefore that argument does not hold water, would my colleague still be able to sleep at night if the government were to say that Quebec has the right to opt out with full financial compensation, that everyone has pharmacare and that everyone is happy?
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:51:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I commend my hard-working colleague from Jonquière on his brilliant speech. My friend is always a hard act to follow.
I wanted to begin my speech by talking about the Quebec National Assembly motion, but my colleague just read it, so I will not repeat it. I will simply add a little to the speech by my colleague from Jonquière, who rightly mentioned that a unanimous motion in the Quebec National Assembly means that all the political parties adopted it. It was not just the separatists, as the parliamentary secretary opposite claims. It was adopted by all the MNAs from across Quebec, including the members of the Liberal Party—the sister party to the federal Liberals—the members of Québec Solidaire, who have a lot in common with the NDP, and of course the members of the Parti Québécois, who have more in common with us. There are no Conservatives in Quebec, because Quebeckers do not vote Conservative, which is not bad news in and of itself. It is important to understand that all the political parties in the Quebec National Assembly asked for the right to opt out with full compensation. Based on that, it seems to me that the next step is simple.
I am somewhat disappointed with the answer that my NDP colleague gave earlier. I admitted quite candidly that I find it difficult to work with the New Democrats. On the substance, our values often closely align in that we want to take care of people and we are progressive-minded. It is on the form, the “who needs to do what”, that they differ quite significantly. The New Democrats want to trample on the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec and tell them what to do. When I talk about that, I am told that members of the Bloc Québécois should want Canadians to have pharmacare. Of course we want Canadians to have pharmacare. I want to make an important clarification. The Bloc Québécois is not here to hurt the rest of Canada. We are here to defend the interests of Quebec. If we can help the rest of Canada, then all the better.
We are not opposed to that. All we are saying is that, in the fine system the government wants to put in place, we want our fair share of the money. We are glad this is happening. It is long overdue. Once again, in terms of social programs, Ottawa is way behind Quebec. Quebec has had a similar program for 18 years. We are glad the rest of Canada wants pharmacare. Go ahead. All we are asking is that Quebec be given the money it is entitled to, because we already have a plan that works well. It is not perfect, but it works well. There is not a Quebecker today who does not have pharmacare. It is important to point that out. Quebec is ahead of the curve in this area, as it is in day care and plenty of other areas. I will make a list for my colleagues a little later. The point is that we do not need the federal government for those things.
That highlights, in big fluorescent letters, the Canadian problem with the fiscal imbalance. It highlights how toxic federalism is for the Quebec nation. The federation claimed that we should form an alliance and work together for the common good by establishing jurisdictions for the provinces and Quebec in order to respect the regional disparities and priorities of each province and territory, since priorities cannot be the same in Alberta and Quebec. The people of Alberta might make different choices when it comes to pharmacare and health care. That might happen and that is fine. They can do what they want. As long as they are getting the money from the taxes that they paid, then they are entitled to their own services. They can make their own choices.
Quebeckers have already made that choice. The government seems to be acting out of contempt, ignorance or snobbery. I am not sure which term to use. I think contempt is the most appropriate. We know that Quebeckers have been doing that for a long time, but since the government is under no obligation this time, it is going to go over our heads. It is going to steamroll over us. It will absorb our system and replace it with the great big Canadian system. An exception was allowed for child care, however. I would like the parliamentary secretary to talk to me about child care. How are things going with day cares? Are Canada's day cares in trouble because Quebec got the right to opt out with full compensation? I do not think so. Things are just better in Quebec's day care centres because we have a little more money now than before. That is all we want. We are not out to hurt anyone.
That being said, the legislation sets out some fine principles. It says it will respect the principles of the Canada Health Act. This program will be publicly administered. We like that it will be publicly administered because it is different from the dental care plan, which is being entrusted to a private insurance company. When things are subcontracted to private companies, we know what happens. We recently saw what happened with ArriveCAN, and we do not want to see that again. This waste of public money was atrocious. However, even if the program is publicly administered, if a federal system is imposed on top of Quebec's system, there will inevitably be friction and inefficiency. The government says it is going to come up with a list of drugs. Quebec already does that. Are the feds going to check our list? How will this work? If the federal Minister of Health or the committee comes up with a different list, what will happen then? That is what we do not want. We do not need it.
I will address the Liberals through the Chair, since the Speaker has specified that we cannot address other members directly. We do not need the Liberals to administer pharmacare for us. We have our own system, period.
The bill states that the federal government will have to provide financial support to the provinces through agreements. Could an agreement consist of the right to opt out with full compensation? Could Ottawa simply respect the fact that Quebec already has something in place, that we do not want to change it, that our system is working fine and that we would improve it if we had more money? Would that ever be possible? Unfortunately, that does not seem possible.
As for the federal government's role in health care, it comes from spending power. My colleague from Mirabel did a good job explaining this issue. The parliamentary secretary may find me too boring, but as I see it and as Quebeckers see it, the federal government's role in health care is to transfer money. Its role is to transfer money because the federal government gets roughly half the taxes but does not have half the responsibilities. We have repeated this so many times in the House, but it does not seem like many people are listening or else people simply do not understand. When I said earlier that we should be given the right to opt out with full compensation, it was taken as me saying that I did not want Canadians in other provinces to have pharmacare. We have never said that.
The bill also indicates that a committee of experts must be established within 30 days to look into the operation and financing of national, universal, single-payer pharmacare and to figure out how it could work. This will be done for the rest of Canada, because Quebec wants the right to opt out with full compensation.
I will warn my colleagues that my speech today will be repetitive. We want the right to opt out with full compensation because the federal government has no business interfering in this area. The bill does not in any way recognize what is being done in Quebec right now. It is barely mentioned. There is no recognition of Quebec's expertise, yet in their speeches, the government members are saying that Quebeckers were forward-thinking, that they are going to take inspiration from Quebeckers and that they are going to implement a similar system everywhere. Why would they do away with our system to implement their own? That is the logic.
I am a separatist; it is in my blood. I always end up talking about the fact that the federalist parties are unable to live up to the contract they shoved down our throats in 1982. It does not seem that hard to me. We are demonstrating our good faith. Not only did we disagree and not sign, but we are working within those confines because we have had no choice since 1982. When members of the Bloc Québécois sit in the House, we rigorously respect the institutions.
Despite that, when we asked for compromises on MAID, when we moved a minor amendment that would have put Quebec another 20 or 40 years ahead of the rest of Canada, socially speaking, we were told no. When we ask for the right to opt out with full compensation, we are told no, even by people who have been telling us all day that Quebec's jurisdictions must be respected. Those people voted against this proposal. The way they vote should reflect what they say during the day.
As for the proposal about the oath to the King, it would not have cost anyone anything. We were saying that we would respect a Constitution that we did not even sign. They said that even that was far too much, and on top of that, they sang God Save The King at us.
So be it. Let them keep attacking Quebec institutions.
We are going to get ready. In a few years, we will have a good debate, and when the federal government comes to us with its red flags, the decision will be already have been made and we will be independent.
1737 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:02:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is true that contraceptives are not yet covered. That is why we need money. We are going to improve our system.
Since my colleague is asking questions about how it works, I will quickly explain. We have a mixed system in Quebec. People who are not covered by private group insurance pay, if I remember correctly, between $0 and $731 in premiums per year, depending on their income. That is how it works for people in the public system. For everyone else, the employer deducts an insurance premium from the employee's earnings.
I should also point out that ours is the most progressive taxation system in North America. The tax rate is income-based. There is no better place in North America for that.
The Quebec system is certainly not perfect, as I said in my speech. However, we are going to improve it. All we have to say to the government is let us manage it on our own.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:03:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intelligent question and for recognizing that Quebec's list is working well.
We have a good system, but it could be improved, as I mentioned earlier. That is why we want the money. We are often told by government members that we, the Bloc, see the feds as an ATM and that all we want is our money. Well, it actually is “our” money, since it is our citizens who paid the taxes, so, yes, we want our money in order to provide services to Quebeckers in our areas of jurisdiction.
To finish answering my colleague's question, the list could certainly be improved. We sincerely hope so. My biggest fear, however, is that the federal government will come up with a list that will likely be much worse than Quebec's, because when it comes to social issues, I am sorry, but Quebec is ahead of the curve.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:05:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we can quote unions, too. The CSN is on the side of Quebec independence. I do not know if my colleague agrees with them on that point. I am guessing he does not agree with them on everything.
The unions know we are part of Canada for now, and they want more money so their members will be able to pay less for their medication.
When we meet with them and explain that if the federal government gets involved, there will be redundancy, it will cost more, it will be less efficient, and that it would be much better if we had our own money, I think that, at the end of the day, they agree with us.
We obviously place great trust in the members of Quebec's National Assembly, who have sent out a clear message.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:29:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us take things down a notch by asking a fundamental question. I have a two-pronged question for the parliamentary secretary.
First, does my colleague think that the child care program is a good program? Does he think that it works well across Canada?
Second, does he not think that the pharmacare program could work just as well, if the federal government would respect Quebec and its jurisdictions for once and give the Government of Quebec the money that belongs to Quebeckers? That would not cost the rest of Canada anything. This is just a matter of respecting the systems that are already in place and those who blazed the trail.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:33:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us bring a little bit of cheer to all this by asking questions about the content.
I would like the member to tell me whether he thinks that the child care program is working well in Quebec and the rest of Canada. We know that the federal government recognized Quebec's jurisdiction and its right to opt out of that program with full compensation.
Does my colleague not believe that the pharmacare program could also work just as well if the federal government were to respect Quebec's expertise and jurisdiction by simply transferring the money?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 9:05:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Does my colleague think that the pharmacare system they want to put in place will be ineffective if the government gives Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation?
What is that going to change given group purchasing is already happening? The group purchasing argument no longer holds water. There is no other argument.
Why not respect Quebec's will? The member does not live that far away. He must have some understanding of Quebeckers. I would like to have a nice honest answer to that.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 9:33:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I have been saying the same thing from day one: We are in favour of pharmacare for all Canadians. We think it is a good idea and it is high time for Canada to consider it. However, we have said and keep saying that this is a provincial jurisdiction.
If the other provinces want to have a federal program, then they can fill their boots. We know that the Constitution says that this is a jurisdiction of Quebec. Quebec already has its system. Why not leave us with our system? Let the government give us our share. We will keep making group purchases and everything will be fantastic in the best of all possible worlds.
Where is the problem?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
