44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 27, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-47, especially since I have here with me the Minister of National Revenue, who came just to hear my speech, as well as two of my loyal squires.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I fully understand, but sometimes when we get excited we forget the most basic parliamentary rules.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-47 today. At first, I thought that, as natural resources critic, I would focus my comments on energy but, as luck would have it, I will be able to speak on another one of my favourite issues, health transfers. Members will understand why.
I have risen many times in the House to speak about an issue that is plaguing Canadian federalism, and that is the fiscal imbalance. The fiscal imbalance could probably have been resolved in Bill C‑47. I will explain why. In fact, I hope that it will be resolved in Bill C-47 by a stroke of luck.
Before rising, I spoke with my favourite colleagues, the members for Drummond and Lac-Saint-Jean, to find out what they thought about health. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean, with his usual edgy wit, told us that, when it comes to health, the Leader of the Conservative Party makes Scrooge look like a spendthrift. Basically, we know that the Conservative Leader now wants to maintain health funding at $4.6 billion, as proposed by the Liberals, against the wishes of all the provinces, which want $28 million in funding. That is the silliness of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, but I want to bring up something that happened on Wednesday, April 19.
At that time, the House had voted unanimously in favour of Bill C-46. That bill included $2 billion in health transfers to the provinces. For us, it was not enough. However, we later found that the $2 billion was in Bill C-47. That was very interesting, because a total of $4 billion would be going to the provinces instead of the initial $2 billion. I think that is very good news. It should be very good news for all government ministers, including the Minister of Revenue, but unfortunately, the member for Winnipeg-North put a damper on the good news. He can always be counted on to put a damper on good news. On April 21, he told us in a statement that he would be removing the most interesting part of Bill C-47, the part saying that there would be an additional $2 billion.
The Bloc Québécois will clearly oppose that amendment. Indeed, in our opinion, the fiscal imbalance must be resolved. We will talk more about that. Our recent experience with the pandemic showed us that our health care system is struggling. That $2 billion would be very useful.
Now comes the million-dollar question, as the expression goes. Except it is even worse in this case, because it is the $2-billion question. What is the NDP leader going to do? Will he support the government in cutting $2 billion from health transfers? The government has a coalition with the NDP right now, so I think the NDP has the opportunity to make a difference by not supporting the government in its plans to cut those $2 billion.
As I said earlier, we know that the provinces were asking for $28 billion, and they got only $4.6 billion. We know that the government refuses to fund 35% of health care costs, but the NDP could make all the difference.
To put things into perspective, I will share what the leader of the NDP said very recently. On December 12, the leader of the NDP said that his party was prepared to withdraw from the supply and confidence agreement it had signed with the Liberals if there was no federal action to resolve the health care crisis affecting Canadian children. That is what the NDP leader said on December 12. He went on to say that this was a decision he was not taking lightly and that it was time to keep the pressure on, because the goal of the New Democrats was to save lives.
The NDP can always be counted on when it comes to saving lives.
Saving our health care system is about helping workers and helping children. I wonder if the NDP today still wants to save lives. Does it still want to save our health care system and children? It has the opportunity to do so. All it has to do is refuse to allow the removal of the much-touted $2 billion from Bill C-47.
In February of this year, the same situation arose when an NDP opposition day was specifically about health care. Its strategy was a bit questionable, in my view. They tried to put the onus on the provinces by saying that there could be funding for health care as long as the money was not used for private services, as long as the private sector was not involved. Health falls under provincial jurisdiction. I would describe myself as a progressive. I do not agree with allowing the private sector to play a bigger role in health care, but the crux of the problem remains the same. The crux of the problem is funding.
On February 7, 2023, the NDP leader said, “After spending the last two and a half years stalling any progress to improve health care, Justin Trudeau has come forward with the bare minimum”—
903 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in a momentary fit of enthusiasm and sincere affection, I forgot myself.
As I was saying, the Prime Minister has come forward with the bare minimum. Let us go back to that bare minimum. According to the NDP, the minimum was $4.6 billion. The NDP therefore wants there to be more than $4.6 billion. In my opinion, the NDP surely wants the $2 billion dollars that was in Bill C‑46 to also be included in Bill C‑47. That is my interpretation.
I will continue to read the quote: “The Prime Minister has come forward with the bare minimum—a deal that won't do nearly enough to recruit, retain and respect frontline workers, does not address the conditions in long-term care”.
I think it is clear that the leader of the NDP has the same objectives as us and that he wants the health care system to be better funded.
I will read a third statement by the leader of the NDP, who said, “Increasing the Canada Health Transfer is a start—but this is not enough to rebuild our public health care system.” Again, the leader of the NDP finds that the government is a bit stingy when it comes to funding health care.
In my opinion, $2 billion is not enough, but $4 billion might be enough. I have a feeling that my colleagues in the NDP are thinking the same thing. The $2-billion question, therefore, is this: Will the representatives from the NDP support us for better health care funding?
Based on everything the leader of the NDP has said, I get the feeling they will. Will they instead support the government and deny us a more robust health care system?
I would like to quickly address something else. It is the issue of energy and the environment. In Bill C‑47, $21 billion will be used for greenwashing oil companies and for funding madness, namely small modular nuclear reactors that will allow the oil and gas industry to use less gas in its processes. Essentially, nuclear energy, energy that is anything but clean, will be used to produce more gas.
That is a total aberration that everyone is against. It is all the more a total aberration because there is no country, to my knowledge, that considers nuclear energy to be clean energy, except Canada. It is well known that nuclear energy costs 10 times more than solar or wind energy. It is also well known that research has shown that every country that has wanted to go the route of nuclear energy in their fight against climate change in the past 25 years has clearly failed. It is known that the federal government's strategy is doomed to fail, and there are funds for that in Bill C‑47. That is another aberration.
I will conclude my comments by reaching out to my colleagues in the NDP, because I am a man of good faith, so we can demand that the government adequately fund the health care system.
527 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 1:56:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I did not quite grasp the part about cash flow, but I did understand what she said at the beginning of the question: She respects provincial jurisdictions.
If she does believe in respect for jurisdictions, like me, she should be outraged to see the government implement this ridiculous promise to put in place a dental care system, as this is fully and entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. This will again strain the provinces' finances and exacerbate the fiscal imbalance. I see that my colleague completely agrees with me on the fiscal imbalance issue.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 1:57:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam President, I would advise my colleague to go back and listen to the speech on housing given earlier by my colleague for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
I do agree with her. Affordable and social housing is essential. Apart from that, what I wanted my colleague to take away from my speech is the fact that our health care system is still falling apart.
I would point out to her once again that her leader agreed to maintain the minimal funding that the Liberal government granted to our health care systems.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 1:59:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, earlier this week, I took part in a non-partisan media scrum with my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, some Liberal members and my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to denounce a situation that is completely inconceivable, specifically that Canada considers small modular reactors to be clean energy. Ottawa is going to invest in a technology that every other country seems to want to get away from and that costs a lot more, as I said earlier, compared to wind and solar energy. It defies reason and must be condemned.
I would actually like to applaud the efforts of my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and thank her for everything she is doing to combat this ridiculous nonsense.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
