44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 28, 2022 02:00PM
- Sep/28/22 2:04:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as we know, our friends, our colleagues and, as in my case, being a Cape Bretoner, our families are recovering from hurricane Fiona.
We know that five Canadian provinces were walloped with one storm. Now that is a record. We also know that as we show, speak to and, in an emergency debate, declare our solidarity with the people of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec that we do so with a commitment that this is not just a story of the moment. As what happened to my colleagues and friends in interior B.C. from Lytton to Spences Bridge into Vancouver and Abbotsford, we must not turn the page when the story is over. We must stay with them until their lives are restored.
May hurricane Fiona confirm our commitment to resilience in communities and to fighting against the climate crisis.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 2:08:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, September 28 is British Home Child Day. This day is dedicated to the memory of the more than 100,000 British children brought to Canada as indentured labourers between 1869 and 1932. The British home children, as they would come to be known, were under the age of 17. Most were between the ages of seven and 14, but some were just toddlers.
These young children were sent to Canada, most of them without their parents' consent. As soon as they arrived in Canada, the British home children were sent to foster homes. Unfortunately, some of those children were abused and mistreated. Various heartbreaking stories have come to light.
Most of the children were sent to Ontario, but others went to Manitoba, the Maritimes, British Columbia and Quebec. It is estimated that there are over four million descendants of these children living in Canada today. My great-grandfather John James Rowley was one of them.
On this September 28, let us honour their memory.
168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 2:30:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the answer is neither, just like when we were in government. We froze CPP taxes and protected the CPP, increasing its benefits to seniors every single year we were in office.
Now the government wants to raise taxes on those very same seniors. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in every single province where the carbon tax applies, Canadians pay more in costs than they get back in rebates, and it is especially high in provinces like Quebec, where there is no rebate whatsoever and people will have to pay the increased costs the government is imposing.
Will the government cancel this heartless tax hike today?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 2:33:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what the Canadian and Quebec economies need are workers.
There is a labour shortage right now, particularly in Quebec. We need to work together for our economy and welcome immigrants. We need to be a society that welcomes immigrants. That is what our government is going to do, and I hope that we can work closely with all the members of the House and all the members from Quebec.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 2:45:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work our government has done to protect the rights of refugees who contribute so much, in such a positive way, to our economies in Quebec and across Canada. That is why we must continue to make investments at the border and give more resources to the Canada Border Services Agency. That is why we must work in close collaboration with the Government of Quebec to protect the rights of refugees and the integrity of our system.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 3:03:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what the government is calling irregular entries are supposed to be irregular.
In Quebec, 98% of the asylum seekers who crossed a land border went through Roxham Road. There is nothing confusing about it. No one is coming through regular border crossings anymore. Looking at all the provinces and all the entires via land, sea and air, Roxham Road is the route used by 64% of asylum seekers in Canada.
Does the minister find it normal that, under his watch, irregular entry at Roxham Road has become the official and internationally recognized way to claim asylum in Canada?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her thoughts.
In Quebec, a commission has already looked into similar issues. There could potentially be some overlap between the work of this council and the work that has already been done by the commission in Quebec.
Is my colleague suggesting that there would be no overlap and that the council would focus on federal issues potentially in Quebec?
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House this evening to speak to the bill introduced by my colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.
As we know, we are here in the Parliament of Canada, a parliament where members' work usually revolves around national challenges and co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. Every day or nearly every day, our work reflects the fact that we are fortunate to be part of a family of 10 provinces and three territories that comprise this country.
My colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel has a slightly different vision. He does not see Canadians as members of his family, but rather as neighbours and friends. His bill reflects this reality, and I find it disappointing that this bill is not inclusive and forgets the other regions of Canada. After all, if what he is proposing is good for Quebec, then surely it would also be good for the rest of the regions in Canada.
I personally am convinced that we can hope for the best for our fellow citizens when we all work together and combine the strengths of all the regions of Canada to address the challenges faced by North America as a whole.
Having said that, I understand some of what my colleague is proposing in his bill. This initiative would leave the federal government with no choice but to think carefully, and for purely political reasons, before interfering in any provincial jurisdictions.
I am referring to the arrogance of the Prime Minister who, first of all, still refuses to meet with the provinces to discuss health care funding and, second, is proposing a dental plan without consulting the provinces and without considering that such a program already exists in most provinces.
We on this side of the House cannot understand why the Prime Minister is ignoring Canadians who have sent him a very clear message that they have had enough. We cannot believe that the Prime Minister can be so out of touch with Canadians. We think that delusions of grandeur could be preventing him from seeing the reality all around him.
Considering the challenges facing health care funding, the federal government must do everything in its power to prevent duplication of services and funding. The federal government's revenues are both huge and limited at the same time. Moreover, Canadians already pay enough taxes, even if the Prime Minister does not think so. Millions of Canadians are suffering, but considering what he says and does, he seems convinced that their complaints are exaggerated.
The time for the Prime Minister's insipid speeches is over. It is time to find solutions for health services in Canada. If a province, whether it is Quebec, Alberta or any other province, proposes an idea to provide a health service in a more economical, more innovative way that preserves very good quality of service, the federal government has to show some flexibility and work with the province for the good of the population.
I would like to address another point, the importance of maintaining health care services of the highest quality. We often hear that Canada's health care system is one of the best in the world, but we all know that we can and must improve it. Bill C‑237 mentions programs with comparable objectives, but says nothing about the quality of the service. Quebeckers demand better quality of service and, as citizens of our beautiful province, deserve better service.
I do not understand why, in preparing his bill, the Bloc Québécois member did not include details setting out the importance of maintaining quality. I believe him when he says he wants to defend the priorities of Quebec. This is one of the most important priorities and he has left it out. I do not understand that.
With respect to my colleague's bill, in an April 5, 2022, ruling regarding a point of order raised on March 1, the Speaker of the House expressed the view that Bill C‑237 must be accompanied by a royal recommendation and declined to put the question at third reading without this recommendation.
A royal recommendation is required for any private member's bill that involves spending, which, according to Speaker, is the case for Bill C‑237. If I understand correctly, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel seems to believe that his bill does not entail any new expense. If the member really wants members of Parliament to support his bill, he should put some effort into proving the Speaker of the House wrong.
In closing, I would say to my Bloc colleague that, while the Liberals are trying to persuade MPs to vote against this bill, our ultimate goal is to ensure that all the provinces are well served by the federal government. Duplication and unnecessary spending must cease. Our new Conservative leader will put people, their pensions, their paycheques, their homes and their country first.
846 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will give an introduction to set the record straight because I have heard a lot of things this evening, things that are bordering on a lie. I am not sure whether it is a failure to understand or whether it is deliberate, but I am going to set the record straight.
First, I do not know if the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is an unbridled sovereignist or if he is just pandering. He says he wants to defend Quebec's autonomy but that the federal government should put conditions on the health care system. The purpose of Bill C‑237 is not complicated. It is about ensuring that Quebec manages its own health system, without conditions imposed by the federal government.
Second, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby came up with all sorts of unbelievable things. Talk about the bogeyman. I am not sure if he is emulating the Conservative Party or if he really had nothing to say about the bill, but he thinks that the Bloc Québécois wants to privatize Quebec's health care system. That is not it at all. Where did he get that idea? I will explain the bill to him.
This bill is in no way an attempt to withdraw from the universal system. The bill is very simple and states that we want to withdraw from the national objectives of the Canadian health care system because we believe that Quebec is capable of administering and managing its own health care system. We do not need the federal government to tell us what to do, under the pretext that it administers a lot of health care systems in Canada.
The only health care systems that the federal government manages are those of the correctional institutions and National Defence. Aside from that, it is in no position to lecture Quebec. Hospitals in Quebec fly the Quebec flag. Quebec manages its own health care system. The federal government does not manage physicians and knows nothing about that. It is in no position to tell us what to do, what is good or what is not good.
Then, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby tells us that the Bloc Québécois wants to withdraw so that we can privatize the system. Come on. The federal government did not create the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. The federal government did not implement the Quebec Act Respecting Prescription Drug Insurance. The Government of Quebec did all of that.
I will not stand by while the member for New Westminster—Burnaby spouts that foolishness this evening. He just made claims about something he simply does not understand.
459 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on private member's bill, Bill C-237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act.
As proposed, this bill would do two things. First, it would allow any province to withdraw from federal programs in provincial jurisdiction if comparable programs exist. Second, it would exempt Quebec from the criteria and conditions that must be met in order to receive a full cash contribution through the Canada health transfer.
Before I get into the concerns that the government has with these amendments, let me very quickly provide a little history surrounding the Canada Health Act. The act was passed unanimously in the House of Commons in 1984. It represents a broad consensus among Canadians and their federal, provincial and territorial governments that access to insured health services should be based on medical need and not one's ability to pay. Since then the act has been considered the gold standard of federal spending power being used to set national objectives in the area of provincial jurisdiction. The act, in conjunction with the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, does so by establishing broad criteria and conditions that provinces and territories must fulfill to receive full cash contributions under the Canada health transfer. Provincial health insurance legislation and regulations, including those of Quebec, mirror and in some cases go beyond the requirements of the Canada Health Act.
That leads me to my first concern regarding the proposed legislation. By accepting this legislation and exempting Quebec from the Canada Health Act's conditions, we would weaken the foundation of Canada's universal health care system. The act establishes the objectives and values underlying universal, single-payer health care. For provinces to receive full health care transfer payments, provincial health insurance programs must be in compliance with five broad principles: universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and public administration. Provinces have not requested that these conditions be repealed.
Moreover, I would like to remind the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois that since the creation of the Canada Health Act, Quebec has broadly complied with the act's principles. Indeed, the discretionary penalty provisions of the act, which give the government discretion to withhold the Canada health transfer contributions to provinces in contravention with these five principles, have actually never been used. There have been some instances of non-compliance in Quebec and other provinces with respect to extra billing and user charges, where mandatory deductions under the Canada Health Act have been applied.
It is also important to note that the principle of asymmetric federalism renders the proposed amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act unnecessary for Quebec. As part of the 2004 health accord, the federal government and the Government of Quebec signed a bilateral agreement on asymmetrical federalism. Under this agreement, Quebec supported the overall objectives and general principles set out by first ministers, while respecting Quebec's desire to exercise its own responsibility in planning, organizing and managing health services. This agreement has continued to shape the federal approach to bilateral agreements with Quebec, notably the 2017 agreement on home and community care and mental health and addictions services and funding.
Importantly, the asymmetric agreements with Quebec in the area of health care have been applied within the parameters of the Canada Health Act principles. For example, the communiqué from the 2004 health accord on asymmetric federalism that respects Quebec's jurisdiction states as one of its preambles, “noting that its commitment with regard to the underlying principles of its public health system—universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and public administration—coincides with that of all governments in Canada....” Stated differently, the government entered into asymmetrical health agreements with Quebec because the province already adhered to the Canada Health Act principles.
Historically, provinces other than Quebec have recognized the benefits of federal spending power. In 1999, all provinces except Quebec agreed to the social union framework agreement, which recognizes a set of social policy principles and ways to allow the exercise of the federal spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, provided that a majority of provinces agree.
That agreement recognizes, “The use of the federal spending power...has been essential to the development of Canada's social union.” Its continued use is important to ensure access to “essential social programs and services of reasonably comparable quality” for all Canadians, wherever they live or move in Canada, to promote their full and active participation in Canada's social and economic life.
It should also be acknowledged that the federal spending powers during the pandemic have delivered results for Quebeckers while continuing to recognize Quebec's unique place within the federation.
The government remains committed to working with the provinces and territories and key stakeholders to advance shared priorities for the health care system and to improve health outcomes for Canadians. One of those commitments, for example, is to ensure that Canadians who require long-term care get the services they deserve. To address this, our government has committed to providing up to $3 billion to support the provinces and territories in ensuring that standards for care are applied. The Canadian Standards Association and the Health Standards Organization are currently working to finalize national standards for long-term care by late 2022.
To summarize, we believe that Bill C-237 would undermine the government's ability to deliver health care results for Canadians if provinces are allowed to be exempt from the conditions laid out in the Canada Health Act. We also believe there is no need to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to allow provinces to withdraw from federal programs in provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has a strong record of establishing agreements that cater to Quebec's specific needs, such as the 2004 agreement on asymmetrical federalism that continues to respect Quebec's jurisdiction and falls within the parameters of the Canada Health Act.
For these reasons, and the others that have been mentioned, I would strongly encourage all members of the House to vote against this bill.
1031 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are winding up debate at second reading of Bill C-237.
This bill gives the provinces the right to withdraw when the federal government creates a program that should be the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I found the term “exclusive” in the Constitution. When we speak of exclusive jurisdictions, we are referring to matters that fall under the authority of either the provinces or the federal government.
The term “exclusive” exempts Quebec from the standards and conditions that the federal government imposes before providing funding for health care. There has been a consensus in Quebec for 50 years on this position, which is the basis for the major constitutional crises that have occurred over the years.
This week's debate is taking place against the backdrop of the election campaign in Quebec. On Monday, Quebeckers will go to the polls and will have to make a decision about many things. I am thinking of the health care system, which the pandemic demonstrated was fragile and underfunded. One party says there should be more privatization, another wants to make seniors' homes the priority and yet another is counting on existing public services, home care and long-term care centres.
This has been top of mind during the campaign, and on Monday, Quebeckers will vote and decide. Usually, when the public makes a decision, that is the end of it. No matter what choice the Quebec nation makes, Canadians will have to agree because Ottawa is imposing all kinds of conditions. It is imposing its own standards on us and wants us to adopt its priorities.
I am talking about health, but this is true in all sorts of areas, such as housing, education, family policy and taxation. In fact, it is true in almost all areas. That is what it means to be a minority, even though this House recognized that we were a nation by a nearly unanimous vote a few years ago. The Bloc Québécois wants the right to opt out of federal programs in areas that should be the responsibility of Quebec instead of Ottawa because we want to be masters in our own house.
When I introduced Bill C‑237, I hoped to advance the autonomy of Quebec. We are currently being led by a minority government. The Bloc Québécois wants Quebec to be a country, but in the meantime, it wants us to be masters in our own house to the extent possible. That is only natural. The Conservative Party campaigned on respecting provincial jurisdictions. The NDP has its Sherbrooke declaration, which supports Quebec's right to opt out. Between the three parties, we can move Bill C‑237 forward.
However, I was bitterly disappointed when we were debating this bill. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie says that he supports the right to withdraw, but only if Quebeckers adhere to the NDP agenda. The Conservative member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington says that she respects provincial jurisdictions, but only if the Liberals agree and grant a royal recommendation. If not, she is against the bill.
I want to point out that the Constitution gives exclusive powers to Quebec and the provinces. This means that the federal government must not interfere. This is set out in the Constitution that English Canada adopted, the Constitution that Quebec never signed. Now a Bloc Québécois member, a separatist MP, is standing up in the House and demanding that the federal government respect the Constitution. The Canadian parties are the ones not respecting it. It is all backwards.
However, it is not too late. Election platforms are not just documents to be used during an election campaign and then thrown away. I am appealing to the NDP and the Conservative Party to keep the promises they made to Quebeckers during the election campaign. Let Bill C‑237 move on to the next stage. That will give us time to convince the government to grant a royal recommendation.
If Bill C‑237 is passed, Ottawa will be free to do as it pleases in areas under its jurisdiction, just as Quebec and the other provinces will be free to act in areas under their jurisdiction.
Everyone would respect everyone else's jurisdictions. The key word is “respect”.
737 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
