SoVote

May/6/24 6:35:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I hope I do not embarrass him over the next ten minutes. I am not sure if my colleagues heard the Prime Minister when he said that people, and I am quoting him because I do not speak this way, could not care less about jurisdictional bickering. That is what the Prime Minister said when asked about pharmacare and dental insurance. A recent Leger poll shows the opposite, that 82% of Quebeckers hope that the federal government will respect provincial jurisdictions. What is more, 74% of Quebeckers believe that Ottawa should get approval from the Government of Quebec before implementing programs like pharmacare and dental insurance. Let us settle this right now: People do care about jurisdictions. They care because they know full well that the federal government falls short when it comes to supporting social programs that fall outside its jurisdiction. Let us set that aside. I would like to come back to something that seems rather important: Does Quebec society need the federal government to implement social programs? Is Quebec society lagging behind the NDP and the Liberal Party in social democratic matters? I have to say no, it is not. The best family policy in North America is in Quebec. The most generous family policy is in Quebec, with parental leave and child care, which the federal government tried to copy 20 years later. Quebec is the least expensive place in North America to get a post-secondary education. Quebec is the most generous in terms of loans and grants for post-secondary education. Quebec also has the most progressive tax system. Quebec's inequality index is 0.31, as measured by the Gini coefficient. This compares favourably with Sweden's index of 0.29. If we look at Canada, we see that Canada has an index of 0.37. This is pretty close to the United States, at 0.42, which is one of the worst in the G7. Quebec no longer needs to demonstrate that it is a very generous society when it comes to social programs. I am going to say it again, although I am certain my colleagues have been saying it all day: We already have pharmacare in Quebec, and while it is not perfect, it does exist. Furthermore, Quebec is in the process of trying to make the program meet Quebeckers' needs more efficiently. Why are we studying a federal bill to introduce pharmacare? Is it so the Liberals can maintain their coalition with the NDP? Of course it is. My colleague from Mirabel, who is a bit of a rascal, frequently says that dental insurance was put in place because the NDP is kissing the Liberals' feet—

475 words

Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24

Mr. Mario Simard

May/6/24 6:48:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if we want a robust system, then the simplest thing to do would be for the federal government to stay out of what is happening in Quebec, which is in negotiations with the large pharmaceutical companies. What the federal government managed to do was to negotiate prices that are worse than what Quebec already had. That is one sign that the federal government does more harm than good when it interferes in areas that are not under its jurisdiction and puts together a poorly thought-out piecemeal program to score election points. That is what is happening here. If the federal government wants to implement this program, then it needs to come to an agreement with the provinces first. That will help the government to avoid many pitfalls, to avoid wasting public money for absolutely nothing and to respect provincial jurisdictions, which is what we are asking it to do.

152 words

Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/6/24 6:49:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his arrogant comments that I must say were also ignorant, the member for Winnipeg North said that Ottawa supposedly has powers over health care. He cited the Canada Health Act, which is a manifestation of the federal government's spending power, which Ottawa, which has more revenue than it needs for its own responsibilities, is using to give itself the right to impose conditions on Quebec in Quebec's own jurisdictions. I would like my colleague to explain whether this is a manifestation of the fact that Ottawa takes in more revenue than it needs to deal with its own responsibilities. I would also like him to tell me, once and for all, why this justifies Quebec having a right to opt out with full financial compensation for programs under Quebec's jurisdiction.

136 words

Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/6/24 7:59:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle just asked my colleague who just spoke a question saying that they do not live in the same world. The member for Châteauguay—Lacolle also lives in a world where the National Assembly unanimously voted for a first resolution, then a second, and then a third. For years, we have been calling for Quebec to have the right to opt out with full financial compensation when Ottawa institutes new spending programs in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. She supposedly lives in that world, but it does not seem like it because across the way, in their alternative world, the federal government is supposed to be able to manage a hospital, which it has never been able to do properly. I have the following question for my Conservative colleague. Perhaps the Conservatives will form the government some day; it is hard to say. When that happens, will they agree with the concept and principle of a right to opt out with full financial compensation for Quebec when the federal government institutes programs in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec?

194 words

Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/6/24 8:06:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague quite pointedly criticized various aspects of this bill. She explained why it should not be passed. In my opinion, she left out one thing, and that was jurisdictions. It is not the federal government's place to become involved in health issues or, by extension, in drug management. Does my colleague have anything to add about the federal government's jurisdiction over pharmacare?

70 words

Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

May/6/24 8:52:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, I have greatly appreciated the comments of my colleague from the NDP. It has been a very spirited debate here. We are talking about the provinces, the jurisdictions, and also about equality of care across the country. I think that is where the federal government comes in. That is where legislation like Bill C-64 comes in to ensure that there is equality of access to pharmacare, specifically in the areas of contraceptive care and diabetes. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that issue.

90 words

Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24

Mr. Brad Vis

May/6/24 9:21:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for his question. If a Conservative government is elected, I would like Quebec to keep its jurisdictions, just as I would like British Columbia to keep its jurisdictions. The Conservative Party wants open federalism that respects the jurisdictions of Quebec and British Columbia.

57 words