So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mar/21/24 4:57:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just demonstrated that inflation is not just economic. It is verbal. The Conservatives are hearing the siren song of power. According to the polls, if there were an election tomorrow morning, they would get around 220 out of 338 seats in the House. No wonder they want to have an election immediately. They know full well that there is an NDP-Liberal coalition and that the vote on their motion is already sunk by the other side. Now they want to fob the problem off on Quebec by claiming that the Bloc Québécois is a bad party that does not stand up for Quebec's interests. I did not hear François Legault oppose the carbon tax, because it does not apply in Quebec. I did not hear the members of the Quebec National Assembly get worked up over this motion, saying that the House of Commons must adopt it and that they are in favour. The Conservatives want a free pass. They say they want to get rid of the carbon tax, but they are not proposing an alternative. They want to make this tax a campaign issue. What a vision for society.

203 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mar/19/24 6:07:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, after these speeches, it seems to me that the amendment of my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway is even more necessary. After 6.5 million deaths worldwide and 45,000 deaths across Canada, we must avoid partisan perspectives at all costs. Throughout the work that was done by the Standing Committee on Health during the management of the pandemic, my colleagues—some of whom are here in the House—were able to see that the Bloc Québécois was always trying to find solutions, to elevate the debate, to set partisanship aside, not just to find out who was at fault. The Bloc Québécois tried to find solutions, to ensure that we are all responsible for what happens and to make sure that it never happens like that again. In that sense, I do not understand why the members opposite are resistant to an independent public inquiry. First, I would like to remind them that there was a bit of a ruckus on Wellington Street at one point. There was a bit of a crisis of confidence. Public health is mass medicine, and the patient must be willing to participate if it is to work. As soon as the patient loses confidence in the measures being taken to remedy the situation, we are not in the right place and we are in trouble. If, in order to restore confidence, there had to be an objective, independent review, totally free of the interests of the executive, it seems to me that this would go a long way to reaching all those who are experiencing a crisis of confidence in our institutions. In that sense, I totally agree with what my NDP colleague from Vancouver Kingsway said. The Bloc Québécois worked in committee to replace clause 3, as my colleague's amendment proposes. At the outset, when we received the bill, we did not really understand why people disliked it so much. I felt it bothered everyone, both the members opposite and those on this side of the House. Obviously, setting up an advisory committee made no sense to us. There are so many advisory committees. However, a crisis of this magnitude deserves an independent public inquiry so that the commissioners can get to the bottom of this. Now, we thought the Conservatives were on our side. It would have been interesting if the Conservative Party had joined forces with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP given that there is a minority government in place. We could have replaced this first part of the bill. However, that did not happen. I should note that when we received the bill, our Conservative friends were not as high in the polls. I do not want to say anything else about partisanship, because my comments could be described as partisan. It seems that once people realize they are likely to end up on the other side, they are reluctant to let go and leave it to others, who are impervious to their influence, to set the record straight. In all honesty, our Conservative friends do not care much about facts. That said, the Bloc Québécois will certainly be voting against the bill as it stands. We had a number of concerns about the prevention plan. It seems to me that it goes without saying that we need a prevention plan. In fact, tools exist for that. All we need is competent people, resources that will not be squandered and cuts that are not made in the wrong place. What happened? We have some answers. We have the Auditor General's report and the results of a few small investigations. We have some answers. However, one question begs an answer above all others. Keep in mind what the government did a month before Parliament shut down. It sent 19 tonnes of personal protective equipment to China even though it was sorely lacking here, and even though the national stockpile was exhausted. If that is not a mistake, I do not know what is. However, what interests me is not who made the mistake. What interests me is why it was made. I do not care about the “who” of the matter, but the “how”. At some point, an independent public inquiry is what we need to identify why and how it happened, and make sure these kinds of things never happen again. What happened with the internationally touted Global Public Health Intelligence Network? These are the people we expect to raise the red flag when various pandemics and epidemics break out around the world. In an interdependent world like ours, where borders are becoming increasingly porous, it makes perfect sense to have a state service like that identify dangers based on scientific observation. I remember the first meetings we had with public health officials, where we were told that there was little chance of it leaving mainland China and coming here. There was little chance, they said, and we had no reason to contradict them. I remember in the early days we had debates about whether it was an epidemic or a pandemic. It did not take long before it became a pandemic, it became global and it became a nightmare. When I say that it became a nightmare, my heart aches for all those who experienced it first-hand, who lost loved ones, who were forced into lockdown, who had their lives restricted with repeated lockdowns in order to protect health care systems that were not robust enough to continue functioning. It affected every aspect of our society. Another thing that comes to mind is the chaotic management of the borders. Quarantines and borders are a federal responsibility. Why did the mayor of Montreal have to go to Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport to try and pass on information so that people would have what they needed to deal with this pandemic? It was ridiculous. In short, we will never accept this bill without this amendment. We also think that the federal government needs to stay in its lane. I think it has a lot of work to do in its own areas of jurisdiction to be able to better manage any future pandemics.

1057 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mar/19/24 6:06:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the amendment of my— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

15 words

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Mar/19/24 2:41:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in 12 days, Ottawa will cut $1 billion in health care funding, if Quebec does not agree to conditions in an area under its own jurisdiction. Quebec has been given 12 days when we are talking about amounts that Quebec and Ottawa agreed on over a year ago. If the federal government's priority was patients, then this money would have been transferred a long time ago, but instead, in 12 days, Quebec will either have to deal with cuts or conditions. The federal government is taking sick people hostage with the money they pay in taxes. Why not simply give priority to patients by transferring the money right now with no strings attached?

120 words

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Mar/18/24 2:41:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this government is a broken record of “no”. “No” is its answer to everything, all the time: no to Bill 21, no to full powers over immigration and no to Quebec's ability to manage health care, an area under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction, on its own. Today, it is saying no to Quebec's autonomy in managing areas under its authority, contrary to a principle recognized in Canada. Do the Liberals realize how disrespectful they are being to Quebec?

87 words

Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24

Mar/18/24 2:40:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, even when Ottawa and Quebec agree on health care matters, the federal government threatens to say no. Quebec has reluctantly accepted the inadequate health transfer increase, but Ottawa is still threatening to turn off the tap if Quebec does not comply with its conditions within 13 days. Even when Ottawa and Quebec have the same goals and agree on things, Ottawa threatens to withhold the money if Quebec does not sign off on each of its conditions. Does the federal government want Quebeckers to get down on their knees and beg for their money?

96 words

Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24

Feb/29/24 2:59:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, federal pharmacare is not necessarily just around the corner. Bill C-64 talks about a principle “to consider when working towards the implementation of national universal pharmacare”. In other words, it is basically just another election promise. Frankly, the NDP got bought off cheap. If, after discussing a principle to consider when when working towards implementation, Ottawa actually were to someday end up with pharmacare, which Quebec already has, will Quebec be able to opt out with full compensation?

83 words

Context: House Hansard - 286 - Feb/27/24

Feb/29/24 2:58:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to health, Quebeckers want care, not threats. A year after forcing Quebec to accept an increase in transfers that cover only one-sixth of our needs, the federal government is threatening to steal $900 million from Quebec if it does not meet the government's conditions by March 31. The Liberals are once again playing political games at Quebeckers' expense and with Quebeckers' own money. When will the Liberals stop holding patients hostage and start paying Quebec the money it is entitled to?

89 words

Context: House Hansard - 286 - Feb/27/24

Feb/27/24 12:48:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois has called for an independent public inquiry. He called for the money to be returned and for the CBSA to be placed under administrative supervision. He has said that right from the start. My colleague, quite rightly, tells us that this is an outrageous scandal. We are going to vote in favour of the motion. On the other hand, if, even before the Auditor General's report came out, the Conservatives knew that there was a problematic sum of $12 million in the supplementary estimates (C), 2021-22, which were voted on in March 2022, why did they not ask for a separate vote? Why did they not object to us voting on the whole thing as a group? Why did they not voice their concern right away?

140 words

Context: House Hansard - 286 - Feb/27/24

Feb/27/24 12:33:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the motion before us today, which was championed by the last Conservative member who spoke, states that the government should produce all the documents, all the reports, so that we can get to the bottom of this. We think it needs to go a step further. Would she not agree, given all the allegations of misconduct at the CBSA, that it should immediately be put under administrative supervision and that we should turn to an independent external investigation?

80 words

Feb/27/24 11:07:58 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-15

Mr. Speaker, I would call for a bit more decorum in the House. First, I think it is important to say that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting this motion as a matter of principle. The leader of the Bloc Québécois was the first to call for an independent inquiry, the implementation of a reimbursement procedure and oversight of the agency. The leader of the official opposition is merely blowing smoke by saying that his party reacted when it saw the $12 million. I am sorry, but the truth is that no one on this side of the aisle was aware of this before the Auditor General’s report. The proof is that the only time ArriveCAN found its way into an appropriation bill is in a note to the supplementary estimates (C) for 2021-22, on which we voted at the end of the year, in March 2022, in the form of Bill C-15. If the Conservatives noticed this when we studied the supplementary estimates (C) for 2021-22, why did they not oppose any of the appropriations? If they had, we should have voted on this appropriation in particular. Instead, all the parties voted in favour. The Conservatives are blowing smoke, but this kind of thing should never happen again. What I want to know from my colleague is whether her government will finally call an independent inquiry so that we can see all of the ramifications in connection with these two cronies.

255 words

Feb/15/24 5:15:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

7 words

Feb/15/24 4:29:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the argument that investments must be made in mental health to prevent mental illness and severe mental disorders. I did not hear his leader say that he was going to put more on the table in terms of health transfers. Will the Conservatives propose a substantial increase in health transfers?

55 words

Feb/15/24 4:13:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7 Bill C-14

Mr. Speaker, we have heard that a lot in this debate. We all want to be on the side of the angels. We all want to improve socio-economic conditions. The expert report does take structural vulnerabilities into account, and no assessor is authorized to grant a request for medical assistance in dying if there is any possibility that the request came about because of a structural vulnerability. I paid close attention to my colleague's speech. Judging from the examples he gave, I gather he was in favour of Bill C‑14 for cases involving reasonably foreseeable death, but that he is against Bill C‑7 for people suffering from an incurable degenerative disease who are forced to cut their life short by suicide because their suffering has become intolerable. If Bill C‑7 is implemented, those people will be able to live until they reach the threshold of what they feel is tolerable. Did I understand correctly that my colleague is against Bill C‑7 as it relates to degenerative diseases? I am curious, and I would like him to answer this question. He talked about it in his speech.

197 words

Feb/15/24 3:40:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7

Mr. Speaker, I have two comments. First, my colleague says that we could have contested Justice Baudoin's ruling. However, Justice Beaudoin was referring to the Carter decision, which demonstrated in a way that people with a degenerative disease, like Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon, should have ended their lives. The right to life is certainly not about allowing people to commit suicide before reaching the tolerance threshold. That is the issue. How can the Conservatives denounce suicide on one hand and say that we must be careful when it comes to suicide and all that, which I agree with, and on the other hand not understand that the only alternative for these people is to end their life? The Baudoin decision was relevant in that regard, because Bill C‑7 allowed these people to not end their life. Second, as for the example that the member gave, I would like to say to him that the conclusion he came to himself is found in the expert panel on MAID and mental illness' sixth recommendation. I will read an excerpt: ...the Panel recommends that ‘community services’ in Track 2 Safeguard 241.2(3.1)(g) should be interpreted as including housing and income supports as means available to relieve suffering and should be offered to MAiD requesters... If his party ever comes to power, will his government increase health transfers? We did not hear a peep from that side when the stingy Liberal government did not put anything on the table that could help us take care of the people he is talking about today.

270 words

Feb/15/24 3:25:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's tone was measured. I think there is space to reflect. People can start from a premise, any premise he wants. However, when I listen to him, it is as though he is saying that all mental disorders are reversible and remediable, whereas all the experts, whether they are for or against MAID, are of the opinion that irremediability is a sticking point. However, they do not dispute that there are people who will suffer for decades. I have the same priorities as my colleague, namely doing good, showing compassion and honouring the importance of life and quality of life. The question I have for my colleague is what is his solution?

116 words

Feb/15/24 1:53:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are not talking about advance directives. That has already been settled. We are talking about advance requests. Second of all, in my speech this morning—because this is a reply to the speech I made this morning—I never said that not enough work had been done. The Bloc Québécois's position is that one year is enough and that we will see after one year, immediately after royal assent, whether we can start to work on the mental illness issue. The member should have sat on the committee from the get-go. He has been an MP from Quebec since 2015. It is a bit strange for him to be so uninformed on the issue of MAID. Since June 2023, the government could have included advance requests in the bill, taking into consideration any recommendation of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. We never said that not enough work had been done. We said that the government was dragging its feet when it comes to committee work. The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying was always convened at the last minute. Does the member think that three meetings on an issue such as this were enough?

214 words

Feb/15/24 11:51:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, we have to start from the premise that all health care workers are basically caring and compassionate people. The premise of MAID's opponents is based on their belief that certain fundamentally malevolent and evil people want to get rid of vulnerable members of our society. It seems rather surprising that the Conservatives, as economic libertarians, believe that the state should get mixed up in such a personal decision as an individual's death. The reason is that other determinants are at play. I have asked them repeatedly why they think that they are in a better position to make that decision than the person who is suffering. Today, I will say the thing they lack the courage to admit: it is because of religious beliefs.

131 words