44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2024 10:00AM
- May/30/24 7:08:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize to our hon. colleague.
I rise on a point of order. In a debate such as this, there seems to be, according to our constitutional requirements, a lack of quorum.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:08:46 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry, but quorum cannot be called during this debate.
The hon. member for Mirabel.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:08:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, the absence of Liberal colleagues in the House should not be mentioned.
We have tabled an amendment—
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to be very clear, there are members inside and outside the chamber, from all political parties, who listen—
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:17 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry. Someone was speaking while you were speaking initially and I did not quite get what the hon. member said.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was just in reference to quorum. It should be noted that members cannot call quorum, as you have pointed out, but there are members, both—
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:30 p.m.
- Watch
Yes. Thank you very much. I think all members know very well what the rules are because of the fact we have been doing this over and again for quite some time. There is no quorum call during these debates.
The hon. member for Mirabel.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that adds a bit of spice to our evening, obviously.
As I was saying, we asked for the right to opt out with full financial compensation. That should have been granted, in the interests of patients, those who are ill and workers. However, it was denied by the Speaker on the pretext that it requires royal recommendation, when the only thing Quebec wants is to have its share of the funds that are already allocated within this bill.
This shows just how institutionalized and deep-seated Ottawa's desire is to crush Quebec, to crush Quebec's desire to act in its own areas of jurisdiction and to exercise authority within its own areas of jurisdiction based on its preferences, particularly when it comes to pharmacare. It is in the genes of Ottawa's politicians, in their DNA. What is happening here today is so unfortunate.
It is unfortunate because the interests of patients and Quebeckers are coming second. We should be greatly saddened to see that people's health is being politicized for electoral purposes. That should never be commended.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am truly surprised that the Bloc Québécois refuses to listen to what Quebeckers are saying.
A large coalition, the largest in Quebec, made up of two million Quebeckers, major unions and community groups, said that Quebeckers applauded the federal government's Bill C‑64.
They said the following:
Never before have we come so close to implementing a real public, universal pharmacare program. The hybrid public-private system in place in Quebec creates a two-tiered system that is unsustainable and needs to be fixed.
While criticizing the system, they also said this:
We are asking the federal government not to give in to the provinces and territories, which are asking for an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation.
That is the message that Quebeckers are sending to the Bloc Québécois. It is a bit like dental care, where the largest percentage of people advocating for dental care are Quebeckers.
Why does the Bloc Québécois refuse to listen to Quebeckers?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:12:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are dissenting voices in every society. There are debates in every society. However, Quebec's voice is heard in the Quebec National Assembly, which is made up of 125 members who are elected by the people.
My NDP colleague's leader had the nerve to send a letter to Quebec's health minister. He literally told the health minister that he wanted a meeting with him, that he wanted to educate him and teach him how pharmacare works.
Do members know how Quebec's democracy responded? First, he was told to take a hike, because it was deeply disrespectful and ridiculous. Then, Quebec's democracy unanimously passed a motion in the National Assembly denouncing this kind of paternalistic attitude, which is, and always will be, unacceptable.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:13:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mirabel for a very well-thought-out speech.
I come from Ontario, and the Conservative Government of Ontario has something called the Ontario drug benefit program. The member is aware of, and quite rightly pointed out, the jurisdiction of the provinces.
The pharmacare program that the government is bringing forward is not really a pharmacare program. It is like an announcement. It does not cover most of the drugs that the provincial plans cover. No Canadian, no Ontarian, wants a worse plan that would cover less. Perhaps the federal government would only cover certain medications.
Could the member explain to the Liberals and the NDP a little more about the jurisdictional issues that they are dealing with, and what people on the ground in his community are really asking for?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:14:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question.
One thing is for certain: If the federal government has money for the provinces to cover more drugs, then perhaps even more drugs could be covered if the money is sent to the provinces and they are given the right to opt out with full compensation so that they can expand programs with existing infrastructure.
However, Ottawa has this bad habit of creating structures, bureaucracy and new layers of all sorts of things that cost a lot of money. Then we end up with dental care plans like the Liberal plan that ultimately involves the private sector, which runs counter to the very principle of the Canada Health Act if it were subject to it. That is what we end up with. These are failures after failures.
What is the point of all this? It is about campaigning for the Liberals and the NDP.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:15:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am also from Quebec and I fully respect Quebec's jurisdictions.
I have a question for my colleague. Does he not know that, right now in Quebec, IUD fittings, for example, are not covered by insurance? Women have to pay every month for their method of contraception, which costs between $20 and $30. Many women choose not to take contraceptives.
Why not simply join a program that will give all women free access to their choice of contraception?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:15:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my best regards to the minister. I thank her for her very good question.
I will use the same wording to answer. Does she not know that Quebec is asking for health transfers? Does she not know that Quebec needs unconditional transfers? Does she not know about the health care funding deficit? Does she not know that if Ottawa stopped saying no to health transfers, we might not be where we are today?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:16:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by just taking a moment to congratulate the citizens of the United States of America and the rule of law that has prevailed this evening. Donald J. Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts. Justice will be done in the United States, and a serial criminal, who has committed many crimes but never had to pay the price, will finally be behind bars in a matter of a few months.
I send my regards to the citizens of the United States. Tonight, the verdict is in, and Donald Trump has been found guilty on 34 counts. Finally, we see justice being served in the United States.
There are Conservatives who admire this convicted criminal. I think it is important and very relevant to the debate tonight that Conservatives have imposed five hours of debate, at a cost to Canadians of $400,000. This is being spent on a debate that Conservatives have put forward—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:17:33 p.m.
- Watch
I just want to remind members that if they have questions or comments, or if they are not interested in listening to the debate, they should ensure that they hold off until it is the appropriate time or step out of the chamber and come back when they are interested in listening to the debate.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:17:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would also suggest to Conservative members that they should not be drinking and coming into the House. It is not a good combination, and it does not look good on them. The reality is—
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:18:02 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:18:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has been in this chamber for a very long time and knows that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. To assert that Conservative members are drinking and coming into the chamber intoxicated is incredibly unparliamentary. I would ask that he withdraw those comments.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:18:29 p.m.
- Watch
I am not sure exactly what is being done. If the hon. members could stick to the subject matter that is before the House, the House will run much more smoothly. I do not think that putting accusations forward is proper.
I would just ask the member to withdraw so that we can continue.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
