SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 309

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 6, 2024 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)
  • May/6/24 1:31:51 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to talk about pharmacare too. It interests me because the Hoskins report made it very clear that the best way to control and reduce drug costs for everyone is to have universal public pharmacare. The Quebec system is a hybrid system that was cutting-edge at the time. Today, however, even Dr. Rochon, the person who instituted the system, says that it is time to finish the job and adopt a universal public system. Yes, Quebec must be given the right to opt out with compensation. We support that and agree on it. However, this universal pharmacare plan would be the best thing for Quebeckers, for patients, for businesses and for hospitals. It is something that the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec and the Union des consommateurs du Québec are all calling for.
165 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24
Ms. Louise Chabot
  • May/6/24 1:32:35 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is no surprise to me that these major labour organizations are calling for this, because I used to work for them. We fought for universal pharmacare for over 20 years. That struggle is what led to the system we currently have in Quebec. Our hybrid system is not perfect and could be improved. I believe that people want to continue with it. I am very pleased to hear for the first time that the NDP agrees with us about the right to opt out with full compensation, because neither the bill we are studying nor the agreement to keep the government in power mentions this condition.
109 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24
Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)
  • May/6/24 4:59:29 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, on September 21, 2010, when my colleague was a minister in the Charest government, Le Soleil published an article that said, “the Charest government was hoping that Ottawa would recognize Quebec's right ‘to opt in or opt out of federal financial initiatives’ and that, if it decides to opt out, it would receive ‘full compensation’”. The member voted against the Bloc Québécois's subamendment, which called for exactly the same thing that she was calling for when she was a minister in the Charest government. I listened to her speech and it seems as though she has changed her mind again. What is her final position on Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation?
130 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)
  • May/6/24 5:16:39 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I do not understand: Why is it difficult to provide for the right to opt out with full financial compensation? Everyone would be happy. Those who want in, stay in. Those who want out, take the money and do their own thing. It is not going to lessen our desire to be independent, but it may make us less angry with the Liberals when we do get our independence. That is all there is to it. It is not complicated.
86 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)
  • May/6/24 6:01:27 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to our colleague's speech. I liked the “Ottawa knows best” criticism. It is true that Ottawa, usually after crises like the one we are currently in, always tends to centralize, to leverage its authority in order to achieve greater uniformity, to deploy its powers in a tentacle-like manner, spreading everywhere, and to impose its priorities, values and rules on the the provinces. That is also why I am not resisting the urge to rake my colleague over the coals for not supporting the Bloc Québécois's subamendment last week on opting out with full compensation.
108 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24
Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)
  • May/6/24 8:50:34 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, one issue seems fundamental to me in this context. The Government of Canada and the rest of Canada want pharmacare. That is fine for them, but it goes against the spirit of the Constitution. I would be curious to hear my colleague's thoughts. Quebec already has a pharmacare system. Would she agree that Quebec should have the right to opt out with full compensation?
67 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24
Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)
  • 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!
  • star_border