moved that Bill C‑282 be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on June 13, 2022, I introduced Bill C‑282. In a month, it will be one year. On November 16, 2022, I delivered my introductory speech at first reading. On February 7, 2023, I delivered my final reply to conclude the debate at second reading and on February 8, the result of the vote was the following: 293 for, 23 against. That is what we call a resounding majority.
With that vote, parliamentarians in the House signalled to supply managed farmers that they would never again be sacrificed at the altar of free trade. The government was finally going to walk the talk. I felt confident that this bill would be passed by the end of the session. Was I being overly optimistic? Time will tell.
There was just committee work left. When a party wants to hold up a bill, it can filibuster. That is what representatives from the Conservative Party quietly did in committee.
The bill contains one clause. If we agree with the principle, the clause in question does nothing but implement its intention. Simple, accurate, concise, this bill gets straight to the point. It adds to the mandate of the Minister of Foreign Affairs the obligation to fully respect supply management by removing the minister’s ability to negotiate these principles in future international trade negotiations.
The minister will therefore be unable to sign a treaty that would have the effect of increasing the tariff rate quota applicable to products subject to supply management or reducing the applicable tariff when imports exceed the applicable tariff rate quota.
What impact will Bill C-282 have in concrete terms? The first commitment the government makes in negotiating a treaty is signing it. By signing the treaty, it indicates that it is satisfied with the text and commits, and I am using the word “commits” deliberately, to do what is necessary for it to be implemented.
By preventing the government from signing, should there be any breaches of supply management, Bill C-282 prevents it from introducing an implementation bill allowing for the treaty’s ratification and entry into force. Unless the matter returns to Parliament during the negotiations and before the treaty is signed and Parliament is requested to amend the law, supply management is completely protected.
Basically, with Bill C-282, supply management is taken off the bargaining table from the outset. It is a powerful tool to increase Canada’s bargaining power in trade negotiations. This bill does not disarm the government. On the contrary, it strengthens it.
Let us keep in mind that Bill C-282 has become necessary because the loopholes that have been created are preventing the system from working effectively by undermining the integrity of its constituent principles, namely, price, production and border controls.
For those who are unfamiliar with the concept, supply management is a key strategic tool for preserving our food self-sufficiency, regional development and land use. I will get back to this later. It is also a Canada-wide risk management tool designed to protect agricultural markets against price fluctuations.
The system is based on three major principles, three pillars. I am convinced that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé will talk about his three-legged stool.
The first pillar is supply management through a production quota system derived from research on consumption, that is, consumer demand for dairy products. The Canadian Dairy Commission distributes quotas to each of the provinces, which, through their marketing boards or producer associations, sell these quotas to their own producers to ensure that production is aligned with domestic demand.
The second pillar is price controls. A floor price and a ceiling price are set to ensure that each link in the supply chain gets its fair share.
The third pillar is border control, and that is where fair trade agreements and the successive breaches that producers have had to deal with come in.
Supply management is a model envied around the world, especially in countries that have abolished it. Dairy producers in countries that dropped supply management are lobbying to have it reinstated. Increasingly, American dairy producers are questioning their government's decision to abolish supply management for their sector in the early 1990s. Indeed, for almost a decade, the price of milk in the U.S. has been plummeting, and small U.S. farms are no longer able to cover their production costs. This price level is usually attributed to overproduction. Each year, millions of gallons of milk are dumped in ditches. In 2016, more than 100 million gallons were thrown away. In 2018, Wisconsin lost more than 500 farms a week.
Of course, there is another argument that could be made against Bill C-282. Some people might think that since producers and processors have finally been compensated, sometimes after waiting more than four years, and are satisfied, concessions can be made from one agreement to another by compensating people afterwards.
Of course, no amount of compensation, no temporary one-off cheque, will cover the permanent structural damage and losses caused by the breaches in the free trade agreements. Supply management is not perfect, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, especially in allowing all links in the chain to produce and to have fair and equitable incomes for everyone in the entire production chain. That is important.
The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Do we want to protect certain segments of our agricultural industry from foreign competition while abiding by the rules of the WTO agreements?
The answer is yes, especially since the supply management system follows those rules. Every country in the world protects its sensitive products. It is true for the U.S., with its sugar and cotton. It is true for Japanese rice. It is also true for Europe. It is not against the WTO’s rules, so let us do it.
Bill C-282 is not partisan, and neither is my approach in defending and promoting it. We simply needed to enshrine in law the good intentions repeated in Parliament for years.
During each trade negotiation, the House was unanimous in insisting that we keep the supply management system. It did so on November 22, 2005, in its negotiations with the WTO. It did so on September 26, 2017, in its renegotiation of NAFTA. It did so on February 7, 2018, this time for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP. In every case, the House was unanimous, which means that government members, both Conservative and Liberal, agreed.
After that, things went awry. In the case of the CPTPP, CUSMA, or the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and CETA, or the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the government ended up partioning off parts of the marker. That is why we came up with Bill C-282 after Bill C-216 died on the Order Paper.
Although the Bloc Québécois is introducing this bill, it is not ours alone. It expresses the will of most parliamentarians. It expresses the will of our farmers, especially Quebec's supply-managed farmers, but also those all across Canada who have adopted this system.
In fact, I know that they are listening to us, and I would like to say hello. This bill is theirs as much as it is ours.
Along with my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I went to meet our producers and consumers. We found an agriculture sector that was more mobilized and optimistic than ever, convinced that we would succeed, and determined to defend and promote supply management at all costs.
We also met people who want to keep the supply management system because it has proven to be effective in terms of food autonomy and food security, especially so during the pandemic. Consumers see that they have access to sufficient, high-quality supplies at competitive prices. They want to shorten the distance between farm and table. They want farms run by people and not megafarms that run on overproduction and waste. I repeat that 100 million gallons are thrown out in the U.S. It is inconceivable.
In fact, if U.S. producers want to return to a supply management system, it is because their model based on overproduction favours only megaproducers and they are losing farms run by actual people, meaning that quality goes out the window. Do we want milk full of hormones from megafarms?
Consumers see the beneficial impact of supply management on sustainable agriculture, land use and the regional economy. Our producers deserve not to feel threatened every time a free trade agreement is negotiated. They want predictability. They want to be able to plan for the future, ensure their succession and maintain their quality standards. Is that too much to ask?
In conclusion, Bloc Québécois members are team players. Protecting and promoting supply management and the result of the vote on third reading are not only the work of the member for Montcalm. I want to point out the remarkable work and dedication of my colleague and friend, the member for Berthier-Maskinongé. I would also like to point out the excellent work of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He did a remarkable job in committee as spokesperson for international trade. Let us say that he honed his patience at the Standing Committee on International Trade.
I must also mention the unconditional support of the entire Bloc Québécois caucus, who not only stand behind me, but also and especially beside all supply-managed agricultural producers. At the end of this debate at third reading, I see that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and the rest of the NDP support Bill C‑282. I thank the Minister of Agriculture for her unequivocal support and, by extension, that of her government. This type of support is invaluable. There is still some doubt among the 23 Conservatives who voted against Bill C‑282 in principle on second reading. I take nothing for granted, but time is of the essence.
All we need is another election for Bill C‑282 to suffer the same fate as Bill C‑216. This bill needs to be studied by the Senate, and could be delayed by senators who want to imitate the Conservative members who delayed the clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑282 in committee. Let us remain optimistic and assume that, considering what a majority there is in the House, our wise Senate will make the right choice.
The time has come to act. Every country protects the key sectors of its economy before engaging in free trade negotiations.
After all the motions that have been unanimously adopted by the House and all the expressions of good faith, followed by all the broken promises by successive governments of all stripes, if we truly respect the farmers who feed us, we have to put our words into action and pass Bill C-282, to ensure that not one more government will take it upon itself to sacrifice, on the altar of free trade, supply management, our agricultural model and the men and women who feed us.
1906 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be concurred in.
24 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, since there is no question and comment period at this time under the rules of debate in the House, some of my colleagues push the envelope and sometimes say outrageous things.
Having said that, I would first like to recall the purpose of the bill:
This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 or older are entitled by 10% and to raise the exemption for a person's employment income or self-employed earnings that is taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500.
The goal is to prevent this from having an impact on the guaranteed income supplement. Since its arrival in the House in the 1990s, the Bloc Québécois has fought hard for the guaranteed income supplement. We wanted to ensure that more and more Quebec seniors were entitled to it. We realized that people did not know they were entitled to it. We toured Quebec to raise awareness and encourage them to apply.
When we first came to the House, even though we were not a recognized party, we did a review of what was happening with the guaranteed income supplement. Once again, we found that many seniors who were entitled to it were not receiving it.
When we presented our budget expectations in 2016, my colleague from Joliette and the member for Repentigny met with the Minister of Finance at the time, Mr. Morneau. They told him that anyone entitled to the guaranteed income supplement should be automatically registered to receive it. That was the Bloc Québécois's doing. He told us that we were right and that he would implement this system in 2018.
Again, just last year, in my constituency office, I met with seniors who were entitled to it but were not receiving it. There are still people who fall through the cracks.
That said, as recently as April 6, 2023, Michel Girard, a long-time financial columnist who everyone knows, stated that 409,860 people aged 65 and over live on less than a livable income. That is incredible. That is 53% of people living alone who do not have a livable income. Over the years, seniors have become impoverished. We must fix this, especially in light of the post-pandemic inflationary context.
The underlying objective of this bill is the social autonomy of seniors. I have often had the opportunity to speak about the autonomy of seniors, but I want to remind members that seniors' autonomy is not limited to their physical autonomy. Naturally, some people lose their autonomy with the loss of mobility. That does not take away their autonomy.
Autonomy is also not limited to seniors' social autonomy. However, it is society that often impacts the social autonomy of seniors. What is social autonomy? It is the income and the place they are given so they can continue to work in society. Ageism does exist.
People approaching retirement have made an absolutely remarkable and phenomenal contribution to society, and yet the closer they get to retirement, the more they are progressively excluded from decision-making places. In fact, if it were not for advocacy groups like the FADOQ network and the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, seniors would be in bad shape. I commend them for their work, and I also commend my colleague from Shefford, who has shown remarkable leadership on this issue. She was able to bring all the networks together to finally get the government to listen to reason. At least I hope so.
Senior's autonomy is not limited to their mental autonomy, in other words their cognitive ability. Many prejudices exist about that. It is believed that 20% of seniors may have cognitive impairments. Some studies in the literature say that among these 20%, 10% of the disorders are reversible, if the people are well cared for and if we do not reduce their capacity to act. Isolation necessarily creates long-term cognitive impairments.
Seniors who live at or below the poverty line are the most precious members of our society. The older one gets, the more one acquires that which society cannot do without, which is moral autonomy. Moral autonomy refers to a human being's capacity to make a just and fair decision while making sure that their decision-making capacity, their practical judgment, is accurate. That does not happen at 20 or 30 years of age. It is acquired over a lifetime. Society therefore needs to make room for seniors because they are the ones who can show us the way forward, if we listen to them and we do not push them aside as if they were unnecessary, and if we do not undermine their income and their livelihood.
Everyone knows that seniors living in precarious situations eventually become sick. People living with financial worries eventually become sick. From a purely economic standpoint, if we take care of our seniors, if we let them have more of what they need to live, we will inevitably have a healthier, less sickly society. In the end, that will cost much less. What is more, those people will enjoy living. There is nothing more important than to give life meaning. After all, we are all looking for happiness.
I am appealing to every member's sense of honour, justice and equity to make sure my colleague's bill, on behalf of all seniors across the country, including Quebec's seniors, can give them at least the bare necessities. Seniors are wise. That is something all the seniors' rights groups agree upon. What we are asking for is a decent bare minimum so as to give them a little breathing room.
993 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:16:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was saying earlier that the Bloc motion is simply about stirring up trouble.
The Bloc Québécois is the only party that brings the interests of the National Assembly to the House, and the National Assembly unanimously denounced the government's immigration targets. I am quoting from this motion, in which Quebec speaks with one voice. In its motion, the National Assembly “...asks the federal government to adopt immigration thresholds based on Quebec's and Canada's integration capacity and levels that are likely to maintain the weight of French and Quebec within Canada”.
That is the reason for our motion. If the parliamentary secretary sees it as a desire to stir up trouble, that is her problem, not mine.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:06:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, despite Bill 101, despite 40 years of enforcing Bill 101, and despite the fact that French is the language of work, the fact remains that English attracts five times more learners in Quebec than French. That is the reality.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:04:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Spear, up to now, I did not really understand why my colleague talked about xenophobia in his speech. I do not believe that my speech could be deemed xenophobic.
The fact remains that what we want is to be able to welcome people in a satisfactory manner, with dignity, so they can fully participate in building the Quebec nation and ensuring its survival. We must recognize that Quebec has an additional challenge that is not shared by the rest of Canada, as Canada has a huge desire to welcome a large number of people without ensuring that it has the ability to give them a dignified life.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:03:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, perhaps the money had to be spent on health care, given this year's paltry health transfer.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:01:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.
Every year, around the same time, we have to deal with the foreign worker issue. Nothing moves any faster, yet these are housekeeping issues.
More concerning here is that the Century Initiative has in no way calculated the impact that these immigration thresholds would have on the reality of Quebec's linguistic demographics and the vitality of the French language in Quebec. At the same time, the federalist parties on both sides of the House boast about how important it is to defend the French fact in Canada. In my opinion, they are improvising. Gérard Bouchard, though a measured person, is outraged. He has vehemently criticized this plan.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 4:57:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the NDP members obviously do not want me to read that quote, and yet it is universalist. As I was saying, “Multiculturalism is much more like living side by side and harbouring frustrations with one another, with results that fall far short of the ideal presented by politicians.”
The truth is that multiculturalism rejects the idea of a common culture, encouraging the coexistence of multiple cultures side by side. It favours cohabitation based on indifference rather than on recognition and the respect of differences, which invariably leads to the ghettoization of cultures.
That is why what we in Quebec want is an intercultural model based on three fundamental principles that form a common standard that protects Quebec's distinctiveness. Being a Quebecker has nothing to do with looking like a Quebecker. Being a Quebecker is first and foremost a political choice. A person can identify as a Canadian. I respect that. They can also identify as a Quebecker. We hope that everyone who settles in Quebec can get on board with that and identify as Quebeckers. It is up to them how they identify themselves.
We are asking for respect for what defines the soul of the nation, in other words French. We cannot welcome 500,000 people a year and not tell them that Quebec's official language is French.
Secularism is a principle that my colleagues surely agree with. It is important to Quebec, which had its Quiet Revolution and separated church and state. The other principle is equality between men and women. From there, each person, with their diversity, can indeed come build the country with us and that is what we want.
How is any of that xenophobic? How is it racist? These are values born of philosophical liberalism that are meant to be at the very core of the political foundation of every member in the House.
I am out of time. I thank the members from the NDP for sabotaging my speech.
332 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 4:55:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to quote Boucar Diouf, a Quebecker who considers himself a part of Quebec society and who says that our society is a close-knit one. He said, “It is impossible to live together without truly embodying the word ‘together’. Multiculturalism”—
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 4:50:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is not a good look on a party that calls itself progressive.
As I was saying, these are the objective and subjective criteria for a nation to be born. The people of Quebec form a nation.
Unfortunately, this recognition here is only symbolic. Indeed, the rest of Canada has always refused to enshrine that in the Constitution, to give it a legal effect. That is why Bill 101 was necessary and was passed in 1977, although we were told it was a Hitlerian law. The Quebec nation continues to speak French today thanks to this law.
At the end of the 1990s, I was saying that the use of French was declining. I kept saying that there would be an accelerated decline of French in Montreal. I was called a language zealot.
Today, on both sides of the House, they are trying to change the Official Languages Act while still considering the Quebec English-speaking community as a minority. We are now paying the price for what happened in 1982. What happened in 1982? Why has no Quebec premier, whether sovereignist or federalist, ever signed the Canadian Constitution since 1982? That is because, in 1982, we were deprived of our nationhood and minority status, quite simply.
Who forms the minority? According to the anglophones in Quebec, they do. If, indeed, the Canadian Constitution is built on the idea that there are 10 equal territories and that minority rights are protected, where do the rights of francophone Quebeckers fit in? Francophones are the minority in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the Maritimes. Although they are a minority on the continent and in Canada, francophones are the majority in Quebec, which means they have no rights. That is how it was presented to the UN.
What did the UN say to Howard Galganov? It said that the so-called English-speaking minority in Quebec was not a minority, but a community that was part of the Canadian and continental majority. These things need to be remembered because I feel that, from one election to the next, historical and sociological references get lost.
I would like to say to my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that Quebec is asking to have its differences recognized and respected. As long as it is searching for recognition and respect of those differences, it cannot deny any other the same recognition and respect of its differences.
That is why, when people arrive in Quebec, we want to be able to welcome them in dignity. Dignity is not what multiculturalism has achieved over the years, by ghettoizing differences, turning these people into cheap labour, making them incapable of earning a decent living, even though some of them hold several degrees. Juxtaposing cultures is not what will allow us to live together in harmony.
I would like to highlight what Boucar Diouf, our national Boucar, has to say about this. On the subject of multiculturalism, he said, “It is impossible to live together without truly embodying the word ‘together’.”
Madam Speaker, I think members are talking a bit too loudly across the way.
527 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 4:47:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was saying that perhaps my colleague has not had that experience.
I introduced a bill on two separate occasions indicating that multiculturalism, a political ideology that undermines respect for differences and the integration model advocated by Quebec, should not apply in Quebec, and I have received a barrage of insults as a result. Some people have insinuated that I am racist or xenophobic.
I am a democrat, a separatist and a humanist. When a human community established within the same territory has a language, a culture, a history and a heritage, when it is driven by a will to survive, when it is aware of its uniqueness, when it is driven by a desire to live together, when it is articulated around a common interest, then a vision of society and a nation emerges.
Madam Speaker, could you please tell the member opposite—
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 4:47:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Jonquière may not yet have experienced how passive-aggressive the House can sometimes be—
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 2:42:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about health transfers.
The provinces said they needed $28 billion a year. The federal government gave them only one-sixth of that amount. That was insulting enough, but that was only to provide care for the current population. That did not take into account the Century Initiative.
The Liberal target is a minimum of 500,000 people per year. What studies have they looked at to determine that Quebec and the provinces can provide health care to at least 500,000 more people every year with one-sixth of the money we already need?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the more I hear the Liberals talk, the more discouraged I become.
They always confuse words and concepts, but these things matter. The member from Nova Scotia was speaking earlier about the anglophone minority in Quebec. In the same sentence, he was talking about the anglophone minority in Quebec and the court challenges program. Even the UN has said that there is no anglophone minority in Quebec. There is an anglophone community, which is part of the Canadian and North American majority. That is a fact.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau's fantasy was to establish bilingualism throughout Canada. I have here a table from Statistics Canada that contains data on bilingualism in Canada from 1971 to 2021. In 1971, Canada's bilingualism rate was barely 6%, and today it is 9%. The bilingualism rate in Quebec in 1971 was 26%, while in 2021 it was nearly 50%. After that, people want to tell me that the anglophone community deserves those levels of investment and that it feels threatened, even though it has universities and hospitals.
I challenge anyone to show me a francophone community that has as many services in the rest of Canada.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 2:15:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, their names are Isabelle, Mélanie, Arianne. They are joined by Bruno, Pierre, Claude and thousands of names with the same reassuring faces. It is the face of the Quebec body of nursing, the face of women and men who are there for us when we are scared, when we suffer, when we are worried about our loved ones.
In emergency rooms, in operating rooms, in clinics, in obstetrics and at the end of life, from the first breath to the last breath, I have seen nurses hug those who are grieving, consoling and comforting them. I have seen them smile as they hand a new mother her newborn and share in her happiness. I have seen nurses work 16 hours in a row with the same energy, the same attentiveness and the same professionalism.
We owe an immense debt to these women and men. During this Nursing Week, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois I simply want to thank them for being there.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 3:55:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not want to preach to anyone, but when I look at question period over the past two weeks, when I hear my colleague say that he agrees with expelling diplomats, and considering that we have reached the point where we are talking about CSIS leaking information, I think the Chinese must be laughing at us. It seems to me that this whole mess could have been avoided if the government had done its due diligence. This whole scenario that has been going on for the past two weeks in the House of Commons and which I do not find particularly edifying could have been avoided.
Why did the government not make a decision faster, and why do we need a motion to make it happen?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 4:03:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with respect to dental care, the program got off to a very poor start. The government rushed to get it up and running.
Quebec asked for the right to opt out with full compensation so that it could actually use that money to improve its own program. The Canada Revenue Agency showed that the project was off to a bad start, because there was no way to confirm whether the $650 given to people was being used appropriately.
When it comes to health care, we cannot afford to waste any money anywhere. That is my answer.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 4:01:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague and I see history differently.
The Quebec government was hoping for $6 billion in recurring funding every year to rebuild its network. It got barely $1 billion. Then the Minister of Health had the nerve to claw back $42 million.
Given that, the correct answer is not complicated. The Quebec government had no choice. It had to either accept the $1 billion, one-sixth of what it needed, or it would get nothing at all.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the government is investing based on events, but the passage of Bill C-47 will not be an event. To clarify, I would say this.
The government boasts about having invested a lot of money during the pandemic. However, had it taken the necessary precautions, it probably could have spent a lot less money.
We likely would have been able to save the lives of more people in long-term care if the national PPE stockpile had not been completely depleted and if we had had masks to protect the personal support workers who had to work in two or three different facilities to be able to make ends meet at the end of the year, because the federal government has been making cuts to health care transfers for 30 years. The chronic underfunding of health care weakened the system, which led to anomalies during the pandemic.
Yes, there is an obligation to make one-time investments, but if we want to make our health care systems strong again, then we need to make long-term structural investments to get results.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
