- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Joliette
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $132,165.46
- Government Page
- May/23/24 4:10:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this proposed amendment, so I am not in a position to fully criticize or justify the proposed amendment that was just raised.
I would say that, in general, these elements are included in the spirit of our motion. As far as the dental care and pharmacare programs are concerned, the Bloc Québécois's position is that jurisdictions must be respected. Why did Ottawa not give Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation so that it could take care of the programs?
I would remind the House that the dental care program will be administered by Sun Life, a multinational insurance company that charges $2 billion in administration fees. In Quebec, the existing program for children is administered by the public sector.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
In his speech and during questions and comments, the student loan measure was mentioned. The Bloc Québécois supports this measure because we see that it will help students in the rest of Canada.
However, I would like to remind my colleague that Quebec is not part of that program because it already has its own loans and bursaries program that works well. An agreement with Ottawa gives Quebec the right to automatically withdraw with full compensation, which we are pleased about.
With regard to the dental insurance set out in Bill C-31, however, it is important to note that Quebec already has its own dental insurance program for children aged 10 and under. We thought that the programs would be harmonized with, for example, funding to extend coverage to children up to the age of 12, especially since Quebec's program is a real program that works well.
However, there is absolutely nothing about that or about a right to withdraw with compensation. To make matters worse, the government has imposed a super gag order to prevent the bill from being examined in committee. That means no amendments can be proposed.
What does my colleague think about that?
213 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his question and for his kind words. The feeling is mutual. I appreciate my hon. colleague's dedication and desire to do good and work hard and everything he does for democracy in the House.
We are not in the loop, of course, but we do know there was an agreement to create a dental benefit. The problem is, Ottawa does not have the expertise to provide services directly to the people, whereas the provinces do. What officials told us when the most recent budget came out was that they did not know how they were going to set this up, that it was bound to be long and complicated, and that it would not work.
I suspect that, when the government said that to the other opposition party in the context of the agreement, it was told that would not fly and it would have to find another way. The government cannot create a real insurance program, so it opted to send cheques. The NDP said to be quick about it or lose their support, so the government did it quickly and haphazardly without really taking the facts and the technicalities into account. We figured we could make changes in committee, but the government was not interested and swiftly shut things down with a super closure motion. If a bill is bad from the get-go and does not get amended, it is still a bad bill.
250 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. Bill C‑30 talks about increasing the GST rebate. That is a good measure that could have been brought in sooner.
This measure was announced at the same time as the measures in Bill C‑31 concerning a dental plan and rent assistance. However, if we look closely at the bill, the rent assistance is provided through the Canada housing benefit. This benefit does not exist in Quebec because it already had a program in place, and so the right to opt out with full compensation. The bill does not mention that right, however. There is no mention of harmonization. The same goes for the dental plan. The plan proposed in the bill would apply to children 11 and under. Quebec's program applies to children 10 and under. Again, there is no plan for harmonization.
Will the government commit to revising Bill C‑31 to account for the programs that already exist in Quebec? Is the government simply ignoring Quebec yet again?
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would remind the House that even if the bills are paid, dental care is part of the health care system and therefore a provincial jurisdiction. This is therefore not the place for that debate.
We are all for people receiving dental care. It makes no sense that people cannot afford dental care or have to choose between oral health and food or rent because they do not have enough money. By the same token, we want seniors to be well cared for in long-term care facilities, and we want everyone to benefit from pharmacare. If we want to talk about that, I invite my hon. colleagues to step down and run for the National Assembly or their legislative assembly to talk about this legislative measure in the right place. The role of members of the House of Commons is to determine whether we will provide them adequate funding or not.
According to my notes, the government member said that, with this bill, all we are trying to do is reduce the central government's power.
He is talking about the national government, but for us, our national government is the National Assembly in Quebec City. He spoke about weakening the federal government's role, even though it continues to overstep and expand its reach. To do things in its own way, our national government in Quebec City tries to work within its areas of jurisdiction as established by the Constitution.
We now see Ottawa cutting its share of funding and increasing the number of standards. That is exactly what the government member told us. That was his direct response. What is then Ottawa's vision in the face of my nation's right to exist? The federal government will continue to suffocate us with standards and keep shoving them down our throat. This means my nation will not exist on its own, it will have to become part of the whole. As we saw in the budget, if we want to discuss funding, we must first discuss standards. It is about standardization. There is therefore less room for my nation in this federation.
The member was talking about hip surgeries. Is it up to Ottawa to be talking about hip surgeries when this falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces? It makes no sense. It is pretentious and paternalistic. As I was saying, this is a boss-employee relationship. This is not just coming from separatists. Quebec's entire health care community has rejected this.
I thank the members from the Conservative Party for their speeches and for showing up in such large numbers, considering that this an important evening of debate for their party. I do not think that a royal recommendation is required for Bill C‑237. I will not have the time to speak to this in great detail, but, essentially, we are not asking for new funding to be allocated. We are asking for the existing funding to be reallocated. This is not about allocating the money to another objective. When Quebec has a comparable program, the money is transferred and, presumably, it will be used to fund the same service. We are not adding anything or diverting the funding. Therefore, in my opinion, a royal recommendation is not needed in this case. I have good arguments in support of this.
First, I would like to point out that the bill presented by the dean of the House does not require any new spending. Second, it does not change the transfer amounts, nor does it change the names of the recipients or how the funding is allocated to them, and it does not change the purpose of the transfer. For example, the Canada health transfer will still be dedicated to paying for health care. The same is true for other transfers that are allocated to a province if it has a program whose objectives are comparable—that is the key word—to those of a federal program. It does not force the executive's hand, which retains the latitude and discretion required to transfer the funds. That prerogative remains in place. The executive will decide whether the province has a comparable program and will determine whether the province is complying with the conditions set out in the Canada Health Act.
Finally, precedents are on my side. I do not have time to go into detail, but there have been many bills that have changed the normative framework without having any financial implications per se. None of them required a royal recommendation.
In the end, the House recognized my nation, which speaks French. Now it must follow through on that recognition. The government is attempting to do so in a modest way, to follow through on this recognition in a modest way with a modest bill.
What we are hearing is that all the federalist parties are going to vote against it. That gives us a good idea of our options for our collective political future.
838 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
