SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 315 - May/22/24

May/22/24 7:53:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had the great opportunity and privilege to be educated in this country as a family physician and to work as a family doctor for 26 years. I take great umbrage at what the member across wishes to say about my feelings around the health care system. I would go so far as to say that one of the main reasons I had my resident take over my practice was so that I could come here and have the opportunity to work inside this system to make the health care system better. What I do not support is a health care system where we see somewhere between 17,000 and 30,000 Canadians dying every year because of a lack of access to it. I place that squarely at the feet of the costly NDP-Liberal coalition.

139 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/22/24 7:54:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, whom I work with at the health committee. However, he has really made the case for passing the legislation. First, he did talk about the Harper cuts and the slashing of health care funding that has led to the crisis we still see today. The Liberals have not been quick enough to actually restore the funding that the Harper government cut, but the Harper government was the major instigator of the problems that we have in the health care system today. It is not just that, though. As members know, emergency rooms across this country are populated by people who do not have access to dental care. The NDP offered dental care; the Conservatives voted against it. The Canadian Nurses Association tells us that there are hundreds of people who have to go to emergency rooms because they cannot afford to pay for their medication. Again, the NDP offers pharmacare, so I guess the question is this: If he is aware of the problems in the health care system, does he apologize for the Harper cuts, and is he willing now to understand that dental care and pharmacare are actually key elements in trying to bring down the number of people in emergency rooms and give better health care to all Canadians?

223 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

May/22/24 7:55:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, sadly, the member is obviously misinformed and trying to present disinformation to Canadians. We know of the Harper government, and I am quite glad that the spirit of Mr. Harper lives rent-free in the head of the NDP's costly coalition all the time. They love to bring him up, but on this side of the House, we also know that the funding for health care went up every year under the Harper government. The other thing that we know, again, is of the misinformation and disinformation provided by the member, sadly. I sometimes enjoy working with him as well, but the majority of people in emergency rooms are not showing up because of dental problems. That is just an absolute non-truth, and if they did show up because they could not afford their medications, then presenting to the emergency room is of no benefit. Someone does not get free medications in the emergency room, so it is just a bunch of foolishness to try to keep the government in power.

175 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

May/22/24 7:56:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier I was listening intently to my colleague, who is a doctor, talking about the shortcomings of the health care system. However, I have never heard his leader clearly state whether he supports the provinces' request to increase health care funding from 22% to 35%. This government has not agreed to that request. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. Does he agree with that? Would his leader be willing to increase the federal share of health care funding from 22% to 35%?

89 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

May/22/24 7:56:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the media nine or 10 months ago. The answer to that question is that we want to uphold the existing transfers. I think that is very important. We also need to think of other ways to improve the health care system here in Canada, while respecting the provinces.

57 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

May/22/24 7:57:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate, but I think it is unfortunate that I will not have much time to do so. With the help of the NDP, the government has limited the time for debate. That means that, today, I will not be able to share absolutely everything that I would have liked to share and debate with my colleagues because time allocation has been imposed on an important bill that has consequences for the provinces. This bill will have consequences and it will infringe on provincial jurisdictions. It may also cause disruptions in the existing system. I think it would have been only reasonable for us to take the necessary time to debate this bill and to shed light on some of its inherent problems. We think that this shows that the government and the NDP are in a hurry to tick a box on their platform so that they can have people believe that they implemented a universal pharmacare program, which is not the case. Today, we are debating a bill that sets out a series of principles. If those principles are adopted and if the provinces are willing, then one day there may be a pan-Canadian pharmacare program. However, there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. First, Quebec has unequivocally stated that it will not support this bill or work with the federal government to set up a Canadian pharmacare program. In fact, Quebec has had a hybrid pharmacare program since 1996, meaning that no one in Quebec lacks drug coverage. Everyone is covered, either through their job—with a collective agreement or a contract that allows them to access a private company—or through access to the public pharmacare plan, which is administered by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. The bill we have before us blatantly encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction. The government is suddenly swooping in to play the leader in a program that already exists in Quebec. The NDP will not have a chance to ask me the question, so I will provide the answer I would have given if my colleagues had asked it. We know that in Quebec, the unions, who for the most part represent public sector workers, pay big medicare and pharmacare premiums on their paycheque. We in the Bloc Québécois agree that there is an imbalance. The government should talk to Quebec and the unions to find an answer to this situation, because there is indeed a problem. However, what my NDP colleagues fail to mention is that at the National Assembly, which is the democratic assembly of Quebec, all the parties, namely Québec Solidaire, the Parti Québécois, the Liberal Party and the CAQ government, unanimously adopted a motion saying that this is out of the question, that this does not interest them, but that it might interest them if the federal government were willing to give them the money to improve their own programs, with no strings attached. We are not being bad sports. We are simply asking the government not to disrupt the way we manage pharmacare in Quebec. That said, we are prepared to talk, take the money, improve our program and, perhaps, find a solution to the issue of public sector workers paying unreasonable premiums. I say this because, before becoming an MP, I was a public sector worker. When I looked at my paycheque, I saw that I was paying huge premiums. This is due to the fact that pharmaceutical groups now finance their medications in a certain way. A small number of us finance the costs of increasingly niche medications for very specific patients. That means a very small number of us are paying the costs of research. Public system workers are the ones paying a large share of it. Since we agree on that, what stopped the government and the NDP from agreeing to Quebec's request? Quebec is not against pharmacare. It is not unwilling to explore ways of improving it. However, the government should not try to tell Quebec how to do it, what recipe to follow, and so on. This bill contains all sorts of steps that need to be taken before people can get a full refund of their drug costs, including diabetes medications or contraceptives for women. That is going to take a long time. The government wants us to believe that if this bill is passed, people will have access to a free, universal Canadian pharmacare program by the next day. We do not think that is possible, because it will take quite a while before Quebec reaches an agreement with the federal government. I heard my colleague say that Alberta, like Quebec, has also voiced opposition. I know that time is running out and that the time I am taking to talk is delaying the next vote, but I still have a lot more to say about how we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, do not understand why we are being accused of blocking a bill like this one, when Quebec has jurisdiction and is responsible for managing everything related to health, including pharmacare. As we know, the provinces have created an alliance so that they can buy prescription drugs in bulk. Quebec's health minister, along with a team of experts, determines the list of drugs that are covered by the public plan. We also have a system that enables doctors to ask the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec for exemptions, so that a person who really needs a drug that is not on the formulary can get reimbursed for it. Imagine if Canada came up with a formulary that was completely different from Quebec's formulary. Imagine the utter confusion that would cause. That is already happening with the dental insurance. We do not need another pan-Canadian program to tell us how to manage our health and social services. What is more, the federal government is not in the best position to tell us what to do, since it already has enough trouble managing its own affairs in areas under its own jurisdiction. We are calling on the federal government to leave it to Quebec and the provinces to provide the service. The best way to help Quebec and the provinces is to give them the money with a right to opt out with no strings attached. That would prove that what matters is not making political gains, but ensuring that people have access to a pharmacare program. What we are seeing is simply a PR exercise where two political parties are hurting in the polls and they want to be able to tick a box on their record and build their electoral campaign on it. Speaking for myself, I am going to be very uncomfortable when people ask me when they will be able to get their drugs for free in Quebec. I have no date to give them. I really have no hope of giving them one either because, based on what we are seeing right now, this is just a PR campaign that is misinforming the public. I find that shameful.

1220 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/22/24 8:07:13 p.m.
Watch

It being 8:07 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 39 now before the House. The question is on the amendment. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of amendment to House] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If a member present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

111 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/22/24 8:11:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/22/24 8:11:34 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/22/24 8:59:27 p.m.
Watch

I declare the amendment defeated. The next question is on the main motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

58 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/22/24 9:03:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/22/24 9:16:15 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/22/24 9:16:49 p.m.
Watch

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services on a point of order.

14 words

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon

May/22/24 9:17:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask that the first division be amended. I made the wrong choice. I am requesting the unanimous consent of the House to vote nay.

28 words

Division
Nay

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/22/24 9:17:10 p.m.
Watch

To seek the unanimous consent of the House, all the whips must be consulted and they must notify the Chair. I have not received any such notice.

27 words

Whips
Notice

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/22/24 9:17:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For clarification, we would be prepared to give the unanimous consent to allow the member to have his vote changed so that he is voting in favour.

36 words

Voting

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/22/24 9:17:46 p.m.
Watch

I understand that the hon. parliamentary secretary is prepared to do that, but the rules basically say that the whips have to be notified first, and the whips have to notify me. All the whips have to notify me. Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 28, I regret that I have not received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request. Should all recognized parties provide such a notice to the Chair, the member would be able to make the request at a later time. As such, again, I would just ask members to go through the proper procedures first, and then we can entertain such a request.

114 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/22/24 9:19:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59 Bill C-323

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to finally give this speech, which I have been looking forward to doing for quite some time. I would like to start by saying that there are some good measures in Bill C‑59. As everyone knows, this is an omnibus bill. It would have been terrible to not have anything to sink our teeth into. Of these good measures, I have identified a few that I think are worth highlighting in the House. First, Bill C‑59 seeks to make it more difficult to use tax havens by cracking down on two schemes. The Bloc Québécois has wanted to crack down on tax havens for a long time. It is not perfect, but the government is nevertheless tackling two schemes, specifically interest deductibility between subsidiaries and hybrid mismatch arrangements. This measure was recommended by the OECD working group on tax evasion. One of the schemes involving tax havens is the creation of financing subsidiaries. Simply put, the primary function of a subsidiary in a tax haven is to lend to the Canadian parent company. The interest paid by the Canadian company is thus diverted to a tax haven where it is essentially not taxed. That is the loophole that Bill C‑59 aims to close. This is a good measure. As for the implementation of rules on hybrid mismatch arrangements, this is consistent with the OECD and the Group of Twenty base erosion and profit shifting project recommendations regarding cross-border tax avoidance structures. This bill also picks up on the idea of Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act regarding mental health services, which was sponsored by my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester and passed unanimously at second reading. The Bloc Québécois supports that bill. Quebec is a pioneer in psychotherapy legislation and has inspired several provinces, like Ontario, to regulate psychotherapy. Anyone who wishes to offer psychotherapy services in Quebec and who is not a doctor or psychologist must obtain a licence from the Ordre des psychologues du Québec. However, the different tax treatment afforded to the various professional associations is unfair. For doctors and psychologists, psychotherapy falls within their scope of practice and is therefore not taxable, but all other categories of professionals must charge tax on the services they provide. The bill would address this unfairness and would come as a welcome change, given the growing need for mental health services. The bill also includes a review of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. At first glance, this is a small step in the right direction. In the House, if a bill is good for Quebec, then the Bloc Québécois votes in favour of it. If a bill is bad for Quebec, then my colleagues and I vote against it. As I said in the beginning, there are some good things about Bill C‑59, but mostly it is a bad bill. That is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against it. Bill C‑59 is an omnibus bill that is almost 550 pages long. It sets out 60 different measures and amends or creates 31 laws and regulations. I would like to remind the House that there are some good things in the bill but that the Bloc Québécois will be opposing it at second reading because of two measures. There are two things that the Bloc Québécois still does not like about the bill. That will not change, regardless of the political party sitting on the other side of the House. The first thing is that this is the umpteenth time the federal government has tried to infringe on provincial jurisdictions. The second thing is the subsidies that the government is giving to oil companies at Quebeckers' expense. This bill gives $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is telling us that his government has put an end to oil subsidies, but he should have read his government's bill because that is not what it says. We are talking about $30.3. billion that is being taken out of taxpayers' pockets and given as a gift to oil companies so that they can pollute less, when they obviously do not need that money. One thing is certain, I highly doubt that the official opposition will do much to oppose that, even if it is “wacko”, as they say. Another crazy idea in this bill is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs called the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, which will lead to more federal attempts at interference, more endless discussions and more delays, when the housing crisis requires swift action. On top of these two very bad measures, the government made no attempt to address the Bloc Québécois' priorities, priorities that reflected the real and urgent needs of Quebeckers. When my colleagues and I are on the ground, in our ridings, we connect with our constituents and take calls every day at our offices. People talk to us about these needs. Worse yet, in response to Quebec's requests, the federal government decided once again to disregard provincial jurisdictions. Housing, local infrastructure, land use, municipal affairs: none of that falls under federal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, Bill C‑59 creates the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. By creating a designated department, Bill C‑59 gives the minister the capacity to interfere even more. This department will allow the federal government to impose even more conditions on the provinces and municipalities and, of course, make the delays even worse. Former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau tried a similar stunt when he created the department of urban affairs in 1971, and it failed miserably. To prevent the federal government from meddling in municipal affairs, the Quebec government amended its Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif to prohibit municipalities, RCMs, school boards and crown corporations from dealing directly with Ottawa. That law remains in effect. The department of urban affairs caused endless bickering between the federal government and the provinces for its entire existence and never managed to deliver anything useful. It was finally shut down in 1979, which was good for Quebeckers, under pressure from a certain PQ government led by René Lévesque. Despite this disastrous experiment, the federal government is trying something similar today. After the national housing strategy was announced, it took more than three years for an agreement to be signed between Quebec and Ottawa. Just recently, the federal government refused to give $900 million to Quebec to create housing, with no strings attached. It is hard to imagine that negotiations will be streamlined under a new department. The picture is not much brighter if we look at the other federal parties. The government is essentially proposing more and more centralization. The Conservatives display the same centralizing tendency, only they are also threatening to cut investments if housing construction targets are not met. This is a disturbing trend among all the federalist parties in the House. It will come as no surprise to learn that we will not support the creation of a department whose main mission is to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions. We will not support Bill C‑59 either. The Bloc Québécois will continue to oppose all forms of federal interference in Quebec's jurisdictions for as long as it takes, for one very simple but exceedingly important reason: Quebec never has been and never will be dictated to by the federal government. Once again, we have proof that this government, this institution, the federal Parliament, does not respect the Quebec nation. It will not respect the Quebec nation until the people of Quebec decide to create a true nation with all the tools needed to achieve Quebec's sovereignty and independence. When that time comes, we will congratulate them on creating a new department of no consequence to us.

1381 words

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

May/22/24 9:28:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague. Our agreements with the Government of Quebec are going very well. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the riding of our colleague from Salaberry—Suroît to make an announcement regarding housing. The provincial MNA for the riding, Claude Reid, was also there, as was the mayor. It was a great announcement about social housing. At the same time, we have made a plethora of other announcements. Does my colleague not think that is a good thing?

90 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/22/24 9:29:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what I have to say is that it is great if an announcement was made with my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, who I always refer to as my treasured whip. When I am told that the federal government is working hand in hand with the Government of Quebec, then I want to know why the federal government is funding the court challenge against a law that was passed by the Quebec National Assembly. The federal government cannot tell me that it is working hand in hand with the Government of Quebec when it is challenging one of Quebec's laws and funding a court challenge of that law. It is impossible. When the Government of Quebec asks for $1 billion to cover the costs associated with taking in asylum seekers and the federal government does not answer the call, then the federal government cannot tell me that it is working hand in hand with Quebec. When the federal government challenges Bill 96, a French language law that was passed by the Quebec National Assembly, using Quebeckers' tax dollars, then it cannot tell me that it is working hand in hand with the Government of Quebec. The day we work hand in hand will be the day when we are sitting side by side at the United Nations, each in our own seat.

229 words