SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 65

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 5, 2022 10:00AM
  • May/5/22 10:26:18 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, you will notice that even during the Senate scandal with Stephen Harper, I never called the former prime minister a crook. I think “crook” is an unparliamentary word and the member should retract it.
38 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/5/22 10:38:51 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, for two months now we have seen the Conservatives blocking supports for teachers, supports for farmers and COVID supports for Canadians. Now they are blocking dental care and affordable housing. After two months, today they came up with a reason for this, even though every single day in routine proceedings they have presented committee reports, sometimes two or three at the same time. If the Conservatives are sincere, and I certainly hope the member is, then he could rise today in this House and apologize for the character of the dismal decade of the Harper government, with the the Senate scandals, the election scandals, the veterans affairs scandals, the scandal around Afghan detainees, the Trump-style attempt to take over the Supreme Court, the funding scandals around the G8 and the gazebo, the repeated contempt of Parliament charges and the misuse of government funds. Will the member stand in this place and apologize for all of the ethical violations of the Harper government?
165 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/5/22 2:39:52 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, one would think the Conservatives are criticizing a fictitious economic policy, not the budget we tabled. Maybe they should take note of what Stephen Harper's former director of communications said, and that is that the budget is prudent and reasonable. This is a budget for a booming economy that will achieve a near zero deficit in five years.
61 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/5/22 3:02:52 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government's failure to plan has prevented Canadians from being able to access basic government services. People cannot get through by phone or in person to Service Canada. In fact, the delays in passport processing have effectively ground Service Canada locations all across the country to a halt. It has become so dire that some people are charging upwards of $15 an hour to stand in line for people desperate to get an in-person appointment. The Harper government introduced a 10-year passport. Has the Liberal government decided to introduce a 10-year wait-list?
99 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the bill sponsored by the hon. Bloc member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, the dean of the House. I am a little older than my Conservative colleague who just spoke. I was 11 years old when my Bloc colleague was elected for the first time. I agree with much of what was said earlier, and I will focus on three points. We agree on the first point that successive cuts to provincial health transfers have seriously eroded the quality of services. We still see the impact of that today. These cuts began with the Harper Conservatives, but, as members will recall, they continued with the Liberal government in 2015. The provinces thus find it extremely difficult to provide good services. I believe that all of us in the House must agree that serious corrective action must be taken with regard to provincial transfers. The second point is about the provinces' right to opt out of new federal programs they do not agree with and receive financial compensation. Obviously, we agree with the right to opt out, which I find extremely important. Ever since the Sherbrooke declaration, the NDP has always argued in favour of respecting the Quebec nation's right to make its own choices and of respecting an asymmetrical vision that would allow Quebec to opt out of new federal programs with financial compensation and then set up an equivalent program or some other program in line with the province's priorities. We recognize the power to opt out with financial compensation because Quebec is a nation. However, I was very surprised that my Bloc Québécois colleague's bill gives that power to all the provinces. That is overly generous. I am a little concerned about the consequences this might have in the case of provinces that have traditionally or repeatedly elected Conservative governments, which could cut or opt out of a new social justice program or better universal health care services that would benefit people from all walks of life, including seniors, people with disabilities and people with special needs. We support the right to opt out with financial compensation, which could apply, for example, to a project that the NDP really cares about: a universal public pharmacare plan. Quebeckers strongly support the idea of creating such a plan. A recent CROP poll on this issue found that 73% of Quebeckers surveyed said they were in favour of such a plan. Among NDP voters, support rises to 85%. Among Liberal voters, 80% agree with the idea. Among Conservative voters, 79% agree. Even 66% of Bloc Québécois voters support this. The vast majority of voters, even in the Bloc, therefore agree with a universal public pharmacare plan. I hope we can come up with a concrete solution, because people know that prescription drugs are too expensive. People cannot afford all the prescription drugs they need, and they sometimes even cut their pills in half to save money. People know that the cost of prescription drugs imposes a heavy burden on their supplemental coverage when negotiating collective agreements. People know that better access to prescription drugs will improve everyone's health and reduce hospital costs because there will be fewer sick people. If this type of plan is created as part of a new federal program, but Quebec is unable to reach an agreement with the federal government, it could opt out. The financial compensation it would receive would be put towards Quebec's current plan, which is decent but could be improved. It is a hybrid public-private program that is extremely expensive for companies, workers and the government because of the cost of the drugs that hospitals have to buy in order to provide care. Up until that point, the bill is relatively good. However, as progressives with a deep-rooted commitment to public health care, we have a big problem with the second part of the bill. This part of the bill amends the Canada Health Act “in order to exempt Quebec from the national criteria and conditions set out for the Canada Health Transfer”. Let us go over those five conditions. Universality means that everyone is entitled to medicare. Comprehensiveness means that the necessary medical services are covered by the public plan. Accessibility means that the fees cannot be a barrier to accessing care. We do not want to go backward, to a time when people had to choose between paying rent or going to the doctor. People should be able to access care with their health card, not their credit card. Portability means that if we travel to another province, we are still entitled to receive care there through a comparable public plan. Finally, public administration means that the hospitals and the health plan have to be managed by a public non-profit organization. Exempting Quebec from these five conditions, these five values that are essential for the men and women on the left, as well as for progressives, would open the door wide to privatizing health care, which would be an appalling step backward for the least fortunate people in Quebec, for the working class and for unionized workers. I do not understand how the Bloc Québécois can move forward with such a idea without realizing the collateral damage and consequences that it may have. Being masters in our own house, that is fine. Making good decisions, that is fine. Removing the key requirement for maintaining a public health care system, however, is something I find extremely worrisome and dangerous. I want to speak on behalf of all Quebeckers who value a public health care system: They can count on New Democrats and the NDP to defend their values, because we will absolutely not back down.
982 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border