SoVote

May/6/24 5:00:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what is clear to us is that the economic situation in Canada right now is very precarious, even worrisome. We have a government that spends money hand over fist. Canada's debt has doubled since 2015 and public debt charges are up to $54 billion. That is money that is being thrown onto the fire. It is not being used to help Canadians. That money is being given to bankers because we are spending too much here in Canada. It is therefore a very bad idea to implement a pharmacare program when the vast majority of Canadians and all Quebeckers already have drug coverage.

107 words

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

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

May/6/24 5:29:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague is a member from Quebec. The members of the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously requested a right to opt out of the pharmacare program with compensation. This means that we are not opposed to Canada having its own program. They say that as Quebeckers, we have the expertise and experience in social programs, we definitely do not want this program to be managed like the borders or the passports. We want the federal government to give money to Quebec and let Quebec manage its own affairs. If the others want to keep this program, we have no problem with that. We respect that. Does my colleague, as a Quebecker, agree with the position of her national assembly?

124 words

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

Ms. Anju Dhillon

May/6/24 5:30:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, I am a proud Quebecker. Our program is going to help millions of women, people from various backgrounds and people with diabetes. It is going to help everyone, all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

36 words

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

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

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 6:39:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I was saying that the member for Mirabel, who is a bit of a rascal will go so far as to say that the NDP wanted to bring in dental insurance because they are spending so much time kissing the Liberals' feet that they are going to get a fungal disease. I would not say something so asinine. I think it is disrespectful, but it is one way to see who might be interesting. When it comes to pharmacare, Quebec has been well ahead of the rest of Canada since 1996. No other province has really expressed a desire to have such a program. By all accounts, with the exception of Quebec, the rest of the Canadian provinces are ambivalent about having pharmacare. The thing that upsets me most about this is that it is a prime example. The Liberal-NDP coalition is a prime example of “Ottawa knows best”. Take the leader of the NDP, for example. A while ago, he drafted a letter to Quebec's minister of health. While he was writing his letter to Quebec's minister of health, he decided he would also contact Québec solidaire, the NDP's sister party in Quebec City. He therefore sent the same letter to Vincent Marissal, a Québec Solidaire MNA. In his letter, the NDP leader told them that he was writing to explain why pharmacare was necessary. Talk about blatant paternalism. As I was saying, he wanted to explain why pharmacare was necessary. In Quebec, however, we have pharmacare already, of course, and we have made more progress on social issues than they have. Unfortunately for the NDP leader, he seemed to have forgotten at the time that Quebec already had pharmacare. Had he been a little more on the ball, the NDP leader could have asked his member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to contact the Québec solidaire MNA for the provincial riding of Gouin. Both of them are in the same office and in the same building. The member for Gouin could have explained to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie the finer details of this issue and the fact that Quebec already has pharmacare. This is a prime example of centralizing federalism, or even what I call predatory federalism, which indiscriminately interferes in provincial jurisdictions. As Quebeckers, we know that entrusting the development of our social programs to a neighbouring nation that does not have comparable coverage is out of the question. That would make no sense. Why would we entrust the development of our social programs to a government that cannot even manage its own jurisdictions? The French word for area of jurisdiction, “champ de compétence”, includes the word “competence”. When I think of the federal government, what immediately comes to mind is Phoenix, the passport crisis, its chaotic management of the border, immigration management without any real indication of acceptable integration thresholds, and ArriveCAN. The federal government is not doing a competent job of managing its own jurisdictions. Despite that, the feds want to tell us how to manage our social assistance coverage in Quebec. Quite frankly, it is a bit insulting. Asking Quebeckers to let Canadians manage their social programs is like asking Canadians to let Americans manage their drug coverage. It would make absolutely no sense. I want to point out something else that is rather important: Historically, the federal government has been unreliable when it comes to social intervention. A case in point is the occasion that members know I love to talk about, when Jean Chrétien, in a moment of clarity, admitted at the G7 that he could balance his budget by cutting transfer payments without ever having to pay a political price. The provinces are the ones who paid the price at that time. Let us all remember the drastic cuts that the Liberals made to health care after 1996-97, namely, $2.5 billion ongoing in 1996 and $2.5 billion in 1997. Thus was born and introduced the fiscal imbalance. Who paid the price? Lucien Bouchard. Everyone said that the birth of neo-liberalism in Quebec began with Lucien Bouchard and the shift to ambulatory care, but that was certainly not the case. I will conclude by reading the motion that was passed unanimously by the National Assembly. It was tabled in 2019, when pharmacare was first being proposed. THAT the National Assembly acknowledge the federal report recommending the establishment of a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan; THAT it reaffirm the Government of Québec's exclusive jurisdiction over health; THAT it also reaffirm that Québec has had its own general prescription insurance plan for 20 years; THAT it indicate to the federal government that Québec refuses to adhere to a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan; THAT it ask the Government of Québec to maintain its prescription drug insurance plan and that it demand full financial compensation from the federal government if a project for a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan is officially tabled. All parties agreed to sign the motion, including the Quebec Liberals for the Liberal Party. For our NDP colleagues, the Québec solidaire people also signed. That explains why we will be voting against this bill.

896 words

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

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

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

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

Mr. Yves Perron

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

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

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

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

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