44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 23, 2024 10:00AM
- May/23/24 12:11:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would simply like to indicate this to my colleague. Indeed, Quebec's has a hybrid pharmacare program; it is limited and imperfect. Do not take my word for it. It was Dr. Rochon who said that Quebec's program was a good start, that it was ahead of its time, but that it needed to be complemented by a public, universal plan, which is the only way to control the cost of drugs.
That is why union groups at the FTQ, CSD and CSN in Quebec agree with bringing in a public, universal pharmacare program because it will benefit Quebeckers.
I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:11:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is absolutely true, and union leaders at the CSD, CSN and FTQ have made clear statements to that effect.
On behalf of Quebeckers, I thank my colleague for his leadership when it comes to the importance of dental care and pharmacare. Clearly, the Bloc Québécois is not giving a second thought to the labour movement and the 600,000 Quebeckers who have signed up for these programs. If it respected them, it would not be moving this motion today, and it would not be attacking these programs.
I look forward to hearing my colleague's speech, which will surely present the views of Quebeckers who want a better health care system.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:12:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about issues that are extremely important to the people we represent across Quebec.
I want to begin by making two points.
First, we often hear Bloc Québécois members or their leader say that, for the Bloc, it is not complicated: When something is good for Quebec, they vote in favour and when it is not good for Quebec, they vote against it. It is all very simple, but there are questions the Bloc members never seem to consider, such as whether it is good for Quebeckers, good for Quebec workers and their families, good for Quebec seniors, and good for Quebec youth. The Bloc always brings up a unanimous vote in the National Assembly, but will that actually do anything to help ordinary people? Will it change anything in their lives?
This makes me think about why I got into politics, which was to stand up for workers' rights, defend social justice, fight poverty and make our society more just and equitable. I always ask myself whether it is good for Quebeckers and good for the people I represent in my riding.
The second thing is that we cannot overlook the fundamental contradiction that makes it hard for the Bloc to take a constructive approach in this place. Its entire narrative centres on the premise that the federal government is bad and does not work. In all fairness, sometimes it does not work or work well. At other times, however, it works effectively and accomplishes good things. The Bloc cannot admit to that because it clashes with the narrative that it wants to propagate. Any success has to be ignored to avoid undermining the Bloc's fundamental premise. For years, we have seen Bloc members choose to support their lines of argumentation rather than support people, whereas the NDP is here to help people.
What can we do to move issues forward and solve problems instead of constantly trying to portray the federal government as the big bad wolf? Sometimes it is the big bad wolf. Sometimes it is ineffective, as we saw in the case of passports and, for years, on the immigration file . If, however, positive and constructive accomplishments are possible, why not support them? That is why we entered politics, to represent the people in our ridings, to help others, and to assist the people who voted for us.
I understand that the Bloc Québécois garnered 1.3 million votes in the last election, but it is not necessarily up to the Bloc to decide what is good for Quebec. Why should it have the monopoly or exclusivity on what is good for Quebec? Some people voted for the Conservative Party of Canada. Some people voted for the Liberal Party of Canada. Some people voted for the Green Party of Canada. Some 400,000 Quebeckers even voted for the NDP.
The Bloc Québécois received about one-third of the votes. However, the NDP unfortunately does not have the equivalent of one‑third of the Bloc's members, since we do not have a proportional representation system in Canada. However, 400,000 Quebeckers sent us here and asked us, among other things, to get them better health care and to expand their treatment services, health care system and dental care.
The NDP decided to go to Ottawa and fight for them to get easier access to dental care. That is what we have done. We hold the balance of power, and we used that. We negotiated with the Liberals to force them to do things they never agreed to before. Now, of course, they are taking credit for it. That is to be expected; that is politics. However, in the past, they always voted against dental care and against universal public pharmacare.
If not for the NDP's work, that program would not exist. It actually exists now. Thanks to the plan we put forward and forced the Liberals to implement, 600,000 Quebeckers are now enrolled in the Canadian dental care plan. This program is not an intrusion at all. It does not interfere in Quebec's health care system. The federal government is not telling anyone how to run a hospital, a local community service centre or a long-term care home. All it is doing is making money available to pay the dentist.
Four million Quebeckers do not have any public or private dental coverage, which has very serious consequences for their oral health as well as their overall health. I learned that heart surgery can be postponed if the surgeon feels as though the patient's oral health is not good enough, because the risk of bacterial and viral transmission is too high. That is a very real issue.
That is what we are trying to address, and it is becoming a reality. Contrary to the false statement that the Leader of the Opposition made earlier about how not a single tooth has been cleaned yet, since May 1, 90,000 people across Canada, including thousands of Quebeckers, have had access to a dentist, either for free or with a reimbursement of 80% to 90% of the cost. That is a big deal.
Ten thousand dental care providers across the country have already signed up. The process will be even easier as of July 8, because they will not even have to sign up. They will be able to send the bill directly through the Sun Life portal. That will speed up the process and make it much simpler and easier for people to access dental care.
We have learned that some of the 90,000 Canadians who have had access to dental care since May 1 have not seen a dentist in decades. This year, seniors in Quebec can have 80%, 90% or sometimes 100% of their dental care covered, depending on the fees. In June, teenagers aged 12 to 18, people under 18, will be able to apply for this new dental care program. That will bring major changes for families who pay for regular cleaning or extractions for their teenagers. Quebec families stand to save hundreds of dollars a year.
Starting in June, people with disabilities who receive federal tax credits will also be eligible to apply for the dental care program. This is revolutionary, and Quebec is not being told what to do or how to do it. Quebec does not have a dental care plan for seniors. There is no Quebec dental care plan for teenagers. There is also no plan for adults aged 18 to 64, who will be eligible to apply as early as next year.
What we also managed to get from the Liberals, with a great deal of effort and pressure, was the creation of a universal public pharmacare program. It is the best way to control and reduce the cost of drugs. All the studies and reports, including the 2019 Hoskins report, tell us that it needs to be done. The Quebec plan, which is a hybrid plan, was a step forward and real progress 30 years ago, but it is now outdated and we have lost control of the cost of drugs.
All the major unions in Quebec are telling us that we absolutely need a universal public single-payer system. We are laying the foundation for that with discussions with the provinces. Obviously, Quebec should have the right to opt out with compensation. The NDP thinks that this would be so beneficial that we need to continue these discussions, that we need to at least have these discussions in order to move forward.
The FTQ, the CSN and the CSQ, which represent 1.5 million workers in Quebec, are all saying that we must implement a pharmacare program to reduce costs, to greatly improve people's health, and also their financial situation, given that the rising cost of living is affecting everyone.
Dental care and pharmacare are cost-saving measures for workers, for employers, for Quebec's health care system. If people go to the dentist and get treated, if they can afford and receive the drugs that they need, they will be less sick. They will not end up in the emergency room, they will not end up in Quebec's health care system clogging up emergency rooms. It is a real and tangible way of improving people's lives.
I am very proud that the NDP had a hand in bringing about this program. It is thanks to our initiative and our pressure that this will become a reality. This is going to help every Quebecker who wants to have access to contraceptives. If these discussions and these negotiations with the provinces are successful, millions of people will have access to better control over their reproductive choices and their own body. For people with diabetes, having access to insulin, to the equipment, but also to all the equipment, will change things dramatically. We have to move forward, and I ask the Government of Quebec to be open to this.
Madam Speaker, I am presenting an amendment to the Bloc Québécois's supply day motion. It reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by (a) substituting the following for paragraph (a): “(a) reaffirm the principle of co-operative federalism, where Quebec is recognized as a nation within Canada and where the federal government must work with the provinces and territories in a way that respects the jurisdictions recognized in the Constitution”; (b) substituting paragraph (c) with the following: “(c) demand that the government work co-operatively with all levels of government to respond to the needs of citizens, while systematically offering Quebec the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation whenever the federal government interferes in its jurisdiction”; (c) adding the following: “(d) recognize the fact that over 600,000 seniors in Quebec have already registered for the Canada dental care plan and the fact that the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec welcome the development of a federal pharmacare program”.
1735 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:23:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we reject the amendment.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:23:38 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. If the sponsor is not present, the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party may give or refuse consent on the sponsor's behalf.
As I understand it, there is no consent.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:24:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to hear my colleague talk about the national dental care program.
They say that the federal government is interfering in an area under Quebec's jurisdiction, but many Quebeckers are benefiting or will benefit from this program.
What does the member think those Quebeckers would say if they were told they had to do without the program in order to protect provincial jurisdiction?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:25:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I held 26 town hall meetings in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to introduce the new dental care program. It was very well received. People who have not been able to afford a dentist for years have clearly seen that it could save them a lot of money and meet their needs.
The beauty of this program is that it is a bill payment program, and bills are paid directly. It is a group public insurance program. We are not telling Quebec how to manage its health care system, but we are taking care of Quebeckers.
Last week, when we had a constituency week, many seniors came to see me to thank us for our work, for doing this. These people have already been able to get teeth fixed and have seen how much it can make a difference in their lives. I look forward to that being the case for teenagers, people with disabilities and the general adult population.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:26:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. However, I want to come back to the fact that the programs managed by Ottawa are completely ineffective.
There are many examples. From what I am hearing, the member wants us believe that everything is fine and that the federal government's programs will solve seniors' dental care problems. It is a mirage. That is what I believe and what I see, because the seniors who come to my office are more likely to complain about the fact that this is not working. That is why we are saying, let us simplify things and transfer the money to Quebec, which will make its own choices and help people.
Clearly, it is not working. Attempts to interfere result in duplication of services and additional delays. In the end, people do not get better services. They do not have that service and they have to wait. It is sad to see people continuing to suffer.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:27:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hear what my colleague is saying, and I am not claiming that the program is perfect right out of the gate. It is something we are building. There will be ups and downs. Sometimes there are small adjustments to be made.
So far, 90,000 people have received treatment in three weeks already. That is 90,000 more people than a few months ago. Without the work of the NDP, all these people would not have had access to a dentist. I saw a bill from someone who posted it on social media. She had to pay $10.71 when the bill was $130, so she saved $120. That is huge. People are going to be able to save hundreds of dollars a year, whether for prostheses or dentures.
I think the program will improve and become more effective. For now, it is not competing with the Quebec program, since Quebec does not offer such care for the elderly. There is no such program in Quebec. We are not going to wait for the CAQ to move if we are able to help people directly.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:28:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for consistently defending the interests of seniors, and particularly seniors in Quebec. It is a tremendous honour to be able to work with such a member, and I know that he often speaks about the importance of the care that seniors deserve. Would he elaborate on how life-changing this program would be for so many thousands of Québécois?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:28:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton Griesbach, and I salute his exceptional work in defending the people of his riding and of the west, particularly Alberta.
These are indeed two programs that will change the lives of seniors, some of whom were suffering. Before the program was announced, a senior in my riding called my office every week to ask when she would finally have access to a dentist. She had infected gums from rotting teeth, which caused her pain and kept her up at night. Thanks to the program that has been set up, she is going to have access to a dentist. It is going to change her life.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:29:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not easy to speak today after all my eloquent Bloc colleagues and before those who will speak after me.
My takeaway, so far, is this: The freer Quebec is, the better off it is. The federal system meddles in things that are none of its business. Year after year, budget after budget, the federal government keeps interfering in areas that do not come under its jurisdiction. It needs to stop. Interference causes delays, especially in Quebec, where everyone agrees that this spending power is illegitimate. The Bloc Québécois therefore demands that Quebec be given the right to opt out with full financial compensation, unconditionally and in every instance where Ottawa meddles in areas that are not its own.
I am going to attempt to once again explain what it is we are trying so hard to get people to understand. I will talk about the fact that Quebec is progressive, the failures of the federal system's meddling and, finally, the fiscal imbalance.
First, all of Quebec's major social and economic advances occurred after we withdrew from federal programs ill-suited to our needs or after we created programs that later, ironically, provided the inspiration for programs that the federal government then tried to impose on us.
By refusing to join the Canada pension plan, we were able to create the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, a powerful lever of economic development and modernization in Quebec. By withdrawing from the EI special benefits program, we were able to implement our own parental leave, which caused women's participation in the workforce to explode and paved the way for work-life balance. By withdrawing from the federal student loans program, we were able to implement a financial aid system that made Quebec the North American leader in access to education. By withdrawing from federal labour programs, we were able to implement an employment policy that brought together workers, employers and educational institutions to have training better meet the needs of the labour market.
Now, I want to talk about some of the concerns. The latest example is the dental plan, which falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction in health. Ottawa is taking on new power and choosing to give $2 billion to Sun Life, a private company, to manage this plan. What is more, Ottawa is not harmonizing this plan with Quebec's public program, which already covers children. If the federal government chooses to introduce a pharmacare program, which also falls strictly under Quebec's jurisdiction, we can expect further centralization and a significant risk of it not being harmonized with Quebec's program. There is no shortage of examples of failed interference.
Last fall, the government introduced a bill to set up sector tables to discuss labour market training. Even though Quebec already has a system in place and is managing it, Ottawa is simply ignoring that fact and is proposing to duplicate the program without any harmonization or compensation. This is not an isolated case. Just look at financing for Quebec's provincial and municipal infrastructures; housing, where Ottawa is duplicating targeted, complex programs, creating a cumbersome and confusing situation that is delaying the completion of projects; or health. Ottawa introduced health initiatives in the last budget, but is offering no services. Meanwhile, the health care system is in crisis.
Here again, health transfers come to mind. They have increased six times less than expected and come with conditions that have led to a tug-of-war. As a result, the necessary money is slow in coming. In fact, it could be said that the decline in Quebec's autonomy and the erosion of Quebeckers' ability to make their own choices is a strong trend. Even the Institute for Research on Public Policy, a Canada-wide research group based in Ottawa, concluded the same thing last June.
All this is taking place in a context where Ottawa is already doing a very poor job of managing the issues under its jurisdiction, multiplying its spending without seeking efficiency or results, and slashing its transfers to the provinces by multiplying conditions and delaying the payment of the promised amounts. The delays are just as unacceptable in the case of infrastructure or housing programs, where it takes years for an agreement to be reached and for the approved sums to be paid out, because here too, Ottawa is interfering.
In terms of the issues that I deal with as a critic, the government delayed getting money out to domestic violence shelters during the pandemic. What is more, despite our repeated requests, the government still refuses to increase OAS by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74. Finally, as a third example, in my riding, the government is not contributing to a cost-shared infrastructure program for the construction of the Saint-Césaire arena. Inflation has driven up costs and the other two levels of government have done their part, but we have not heard from the federal government.
This is concrete evidence that the interference and incompetence of the federal government is delaying and even undermining our work.
Ottawa is doing this because it has the upper hand due to the persistent fiscal imbalance. In Canada, there is a serious fiscal imbalance to the detriment of Quebec and the provinces. Year after year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer keeps repeating in his fiscal sustainability report that the provinces' finances are not sustainable over time.
There are three kinds of dysfunctions. First, by collecting more revenue than is necessary to meet its obligations, Ottawa is not making the effort to manage its administration effectively.
The federal government is notoriously ineffective. When Ottawa gets involved, everything costs more than it should.
Ottawa's continued interference is leading to an unprecedented centralization of power in the hands of the federal government. This weakens the people of Quebec's ability to develop in accordance with their needs, strengths, characteristics and desires. This centralization has been a trend for a long time, since Confederation. Since then, every Canadian government has been working to transform the federation into a legislative union, where Ottawa would reign supreme over the provinces and Quebec. Even under the Harper government, a Conservative government, centralization of power occurred, and that trend is ongoing. In Canada, there is no status quo. The third way, autonomy, that lies between our sovereignty and our assimilation and in which Quebec would be respected, is constantly under attack by the federal government, no matter which party is in power. The conclusion is that things are not working.
To put an end to interference means truly offering Quebec a right to opt out with full compensation and without condition from any new federal program that falls under the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. The government must immediately undertake negotiations with Quebec to implement this right to opt out of the dental care program and of the possible pharmacare program. It must undertake negotiations with the Government of Quebec to fully transfer to it the temporary foreign worker program, which would be a continuation of the federal government's withdrawal from Quebec's labour market sector, which first started in 1997. It must also systematically apply the principle of asymmetry in every federal transfer, in order to give more flexibility to the Government of Quebec, the cornerstone of a nation that enjoys the inherent right to self-determination. Finally, there needs to be a systematic review of federal programs with a view to determining which ones infringe on the jurisdictions of the provinces or overlap their programs in full or in part. Only Quebec still stands up to the federal government's interference.
When the federal government creates housing programs, it can easily impose them on the provinces, which just accept them and make their contribution. In Quebec, the federal government is barging in on an existing ecosystem, and that causes friction and keeps programs from starting up. After the national housing strategy was announced, it took more than three years for Quebec and Ottawa to come to an agreement. Recently, the federal government again refused to give $900 million to Quebec without imposing any conditions on housing construction. It is hard to believe that negotiations will be streamlined and fast-tracked under a new federal department.
It is the same thing with infrastructure programs. The federal government wants to determine infrastructure priorities for Quebec and the municipalities, going so far as to interfere in matters as local as urban planning and the density of residential districts.
When the federal government announces a new infrastructure program with new conditions, it starts a tug-of-war with Quebec. Programs in Quebec start on average 18 months later that in the rest of Canada, where the government has free rein to take the lead in areas outside its jurisdiction.
In conclusion, one federal party after another has opted out of recognizing the Quebec nation and everything that implies. Even the Conservatives, who say they reject Pierre Elliott Trudeau's legacy, embrace Trudeau's principle of provincial equality. There is no special status; there is no right to opt out. Federal spending that encroaches on provincial jurisdiction negates the division of powers in Canada and erases Quebec's autonomy. There is no way for Quebec to end federal interference.
Federal interference proves that the fiscal imbalance has not been resolved. We know this because Ottawa has extra money to spend in areas under provincial jurisdiction. The fiscal imbalance will never be resolved without ending federal spending power in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Ottawa's conditional transfers and interference are undermining Quebec's autonomy.
The House of Commons recognizes the Quebec nation; everyone seems to be bragging about that today. However, recognizing the existence of a nation is more than symbolic. Just like individuals, nations have fundamental rights. The most fundamental of these rights is the right of a nation to control the social, economic and cultural development of its own society. It is the right to self-determination. We cannot, on the one hand, recognize that the Quebec nation exists and has the right to make choices that are different from those of Canada, and, on the other hand, deny that right by maintaining the federal government's spending power. In the end, the federal government's spending power is its very denial of the Quebec nation.
1751 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:39:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is somewhat sad that a political entity in the House would not support, for example, a senior who is on a fixed income and requires dental services having access to a national dental program. It is somewhat sad that some members would advocate that it is okay to leave a hungry child in a school setting because they do not support a national food program.
Would the member agree that sometimes we need to put the party aside in the best interest of the constituents we serve?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:40:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what is even sadder is that my colleague's only solution for seniors is the dental care plan. He did not talk at all about what his government is responsible for. Let us be clear. Old age security should be taken care of by his government, which increased the benefits by only 10%, and only for people aged 75 and over. I keep hearing about it every day. Seniors do not understand why his government, which is in charge of this program, has not taken care of people aged 65 to 74. They are falling through the cracks. They do not have more money in their pockets. That is what I do not understand and find very sad.
As for setting partisanship aside, I will say again that if something is good for Quebec, we will vote in favour of it, and if it is not good for Quebec, we will vote against it. My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has worked on the issue of food assistance for children.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:41:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. Our leader spoke about this earlier in his speech. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the budget allocations. We even heard the leader and some of his Bloc Québécois colleagues say that it was no big deal, that there is no time for that.
The Liberal Party of Canada's meddling in Quebec's jurisdictions has been apparent for a long time and these budget allocations are partly to blame.
Why did she vote for those?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:42:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, here is a lesson in introductory politics and economics. Estimates and allocations, votes on budgets and votes on budgetary allocations are not the same thing. We oppose the Liberal government's really reckless, often ineffective and poorly targeted spending. We voted against the budget. That is how we have shown our opposition to this out-of-control spending.
Last week, in committee, I asked a question about another example of poorly targeted funding. On one hand, the federal government has hired more public servants, but on the other, it is using external consultants more, and that costs more. I was unable to get an answer about that in committee, by the way.
It is not in anyone's interest to make the system break down. That is the difference between budgetary allocations and the budget. Obviously, we are opposed to reckless spending, but we must also respect our institutions and those who work for government. It is not in anyone's interest to bring the system to a halt.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:43:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will speak directly to the concern that the member raises, which is that of jurisdiction, and the real risk that is present to Québécois, which is the erasure of culture. It is ironic for me in many ways because there are more than two nations in Canada. The Bloc often speaks of just two nations. Turtle Island is founded on the diversity of many nations, of which I am a member in Alberta, particularly the Cree and the Métis.
The member speaks about freedom and self-determination for Québécois, but we just recently heard that first nations there were concerned about the erasure of their own culture.
How does the member reconcile the very real difficulty between the self-determination of Québécois and the self-determination of indigenous people in Quebec?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:44:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have always advocated for nation-to-nation dialogue in Quebec with indigenous peoples. Here is another example of what is not working. The federal government is responsible for housing, especially in indigenous communities. We looked at this in committee, and right now, not enough investments are being made in housing for indigenous women and indigenous people.
Rather than investing in areas that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction, the federal government should look after its own affairs.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:44:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hope you found some spruce gum.
I have been wondering what approach I should take for this speech. There is so much to say, yet at the same time, so little. I can boil it down to a very apt phrase my grandmother used to say to me when I was little and wanted to play with the pie dough while she cooked for dozens of guests. This saying applies to all kinds of situations, especially when we look at the multiple instances of federal meddling in Quebec's jurisdictions: in all circumstances, if we cannot be helpful, we should refrain from doing harm.
I could stop there.
Federalism, by definition, is about pooling some of our resources, establishing priorities and areas where it will be good to do things collectively, identifying what might be advantageous to pay for together and then letting everyone do what they want with the rest of their resources. Quebec has the data, the institutions and the intellectual and organizational capacity to do it best.
The purpose of federalism is not to impoverish the members that make up the whole. However, it is quite the contrary here in Canada. It does not matter which political party is in charge. This happens under every government, with the aim of dominating the provinces, intruding into everything, spending outrageously, duplicating spending, and demanding more and more in exchange. The proof is that everything keeps getting worse. In the history of Canadian federalism, we have never seen so many conditions attached to such meagre proposals.
My colleagues across the way would have me believe that, in Quebec, it is only normal that no one cares about where the money comes from, that the important thing is that the money arrives. To all those who believe that myth, I am sorry, but that does not fly in Quebec.
Why would the federal government change its methods? Ottawa keeps the upper hand by maintaining the fiscal imbalance. That is its self-maintaining power. In a federation, there is a fiscal imbalance when one level of government collects more taxes than it needs to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities, while the other level of government struggles to fund its own areas of responsibility independently because it is underfunded.
There is a serious fiscal imbalance in Canada at the expense of Quebec and the provinces. It is recognized, and it has been studied and analyzed. The Parliamentary Budget Officer repeats this year after year in his report on the fiscal sustainability of the provinces. At the end of the day, the provinces' finances are not sustainable. As time goes on, the federal government is getting more and more leeway to interfere, because Quebec and the provinces become so financially vulnerable that they are prepared to accept any crumbs rather than have nothing. That is the worst thing. They are forced to give in through deprivation. It is despicable.
Take health care, for example. The federal government funds a meagre 23% of provincial health care spending. Its constitutional obligation says it could go as high as 50%. The premiers presented a united front and asked for 35%. That would have meant about $6 billion a year for Quebec. Quebec was told that it would receive $900 million a year, but it is still waiting on that.
Had the federal government fulfilled its yearly obligation to provide the provinces with adequate health care funding, their balance sheet would look very different. We would not be arguing about dental insurance. We would just have it, like we have pharmacare. The issue is not that we do not want dental insurance. The issue is that the federal government is not delivering on its responsibilities. It is not funding provincial health care systems adequately, and the provinces are being forced to accept anything rather than nothing at all. That is how we wound up where we are today. Then the government swoops in like Robin Hood to save the day. After starving people, it throws a few bucks their way to placate them.
Even under the Harper government, there was centralization of power. There is no status quo in Canada. The middle ground between sovereignty and assimilation, respect for Quebec's autonomy, has always been under attack by every federal party that has ever held power. Quebeckers have a natural, organic, creative impulse that has always driven the unconventional development of our society and kept it ahead of the curve. My background is in entrepreneurship in the regions. We know from hard work, resourcefulness, rational thinking and organizing for efficiency in the regions.
That was probably what struck me most when I arrived here in the House. I wondered where I had landed. There was talk about a lot of things that already exist in Quebec. When the rest of Canada wants child care centres and pharmacare like Quebec has, why can the federal government not recognize Quebec's progress and simply give it back its share of the tax contribution, unconditionally? Quebec can simply say no thank you, we already have all that, we want our share and we will determine where to invest that money appropriately, based on where we are at.
No, they do not want to give us that. They want us to calm down, not get carried away and wait patiently. They want us to pay twice for things we already have, for redundancies that muddy our system and seriously bog down all our incredible, ingenious initiatives that have always been our signature and our strength. We are herded like sheep, sending in our share of the money to be spent as the feds see fit. When it suits them, they send us a little money, just to keep us quiet.
On this opposition day—and I find these words to be particularly meaningful—we are saying that, for us, depending on a machine that is adding layers of red tape to increase its authority to decide our future with our own money is unacceptable. We Quebeckers are capable of conceiving, building and shaping our society ourselves. The proof is that, despite the many restrictions created in large part by the centralization imposed by the federal government, Quebec has nevertheless managed to provide more social services and win more economic victories over the years than many countries in the world, and that will continue. It will continue because that is who we are as Quebeckers. In Quebec, we speak French and we are close-knit. We support one another and we protect what we have. Our future is green and sustainable, and we are moving towards it with ingenuity and creativity.
Honestly, being dependent on a federalism that is caught up in its own areas of jurisdiction and feeds its own centralizing habits to excess makes us all the more eager to become independent. The Bloc Québécois is here for just that reason, to stop the federal government from constantly putting things in place to try to keep Quebec in line. The federal government is interfering in our economy, our resources, our public services, our values and our language.
For Quebec, that is unacceptable.
1201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:52:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, much like the Province of Saskatchewan played a very important role in the creation of the Canada Health Act and our national health care system, the Province of Quebec played a very important role in the national child care program we have today and the legislation that was ultimately put in place. That is one of the nice things about the federation. I think about the individuals who would be helped in all regions of the country through the national dental care program and the national food program for children.
I am wondering why some members in the chamber do not see fit to support those programs, which would help real people, real children and real seniors on fixed incomes. Why would the member not recognize that?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
