SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 203

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2023 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 203 - May/31/23
Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-284. As my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou said so brilliantly earlier, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill. I see no reason why we would oppose a national strategy to support the prevention and treatment of eye diseases, just as I see no reason why we would oppose an age-related macular degeneration awareness month. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill because, and I mean no offence, it is, in my view, an apple pie bill. Indeed, no one could oppose such a strategy, especially since the health services outlined in the bill—as we will perhaps see when it is studied in committee—are more the responsibility of the federal government. Research funding and the approval of certain drugs and medical devices fall under federal jurisdiction. I do not see any problems with jurisdiction either, but we do reserve the right to take a closer look at the ins and outs of this bill in committee. What concerns me a bit more about having a better strategy to support the prevention and treatment of eye disease is how to do it. A strategy is fine, but it needs to be accompanied by action. That is what I want to focus on as I discuss this topic. The essential point here is that there is still a lot of work to be done. The work to improve the eye health of Quebecers and Canadians will require more services. For me, first and foremost, the best solution for more services is to have coverage under the Régie de l’assurance-maladie du Québec, which means an increase in health transfers. If we want better services, we need more resources. Let us look, for example, at new treatments like the Luxturna gene therapy, a treatment that makes it possible to treat Leber congenital amaurosis. That is a significant and very costly illness, with just one treatment costing $1 million. That is an enormous cost. In that regard, on March 23, the federal government announced $1.3 billion over three years to help the provinces cover those treatment costs. We know that gene therapies are treatments that herald small revolutions in medicine and health, but they are very costly treatments. If the past is any indication, we know that the federal government is not always there for health funding. Now it is clear where I am going. The best way to have the best health care and to fight against eye disease is to combat one of the problems that plague the Canadian federation: I am talking about the fiscal imbalance. I would note that, last week, the mischievous member for Mirabel held a symposium here in Ottawa on the fiscal imbalance to study the phenomenon in depth. It was a non-partisan symposium attended by the Parliamentary Budget Officer—I do not think the Parliamentary Budget Officer is partisan—and Mr. Benoît Pelletier, a former Liberal minister from Quebec, who is not a Bloc supporter, but who came to speak to us about the fiscal imbalance. Why am I talking about the fiscal imbalance? It is to remind members of the demands made by Quebec and the provinces on health care funding. Quebec and the provinces estimated their health funding shortfall at $28 billion per year. The goal was to increase Ottawa’s health transfers from 22% to 35%. What did the federal government offer? Members will recall that it was far less than $28 billion. What the federal government offered was $4.16 billion. The difference between the provinces' demand for $28 billion and the federal offer of $4.6 billion is not just about money. The difference between the two means that vision care will never be provided for lack of resources. There is no doubt about that. For example, in Quebec, year after year, health resources generally represent approximately 42% of Quebec's total budget. That means that there is 58% left for all of the government's other responsibilities such as education, fighting poverty, child care—Quebec was a pioneer in this field, as it created the child care model—infrastructure, roads, public transportation and bridges. There is 58% left for that, for funding municipalities and also for supporting Quebec businesses. If we wait for the federal government to support Quebec businesses, we will be waiting a long time, as we saw again with the announcement that Volkswagen is building in Ontario. Therefore, 42% of the Quebec government's budget goes directly to health care. That considerably reduces its budgetary margin. That is known as the fiscal imbalance. I can give a very simple definition. It is a definition that everyone agrees on, the definition from the Séguin report. I am talking here about Yves Séguin, the former Liberal minister, not the guy who had a goat. Yves Séguin said that the provinces' spending structure is such that expenditures grow faster than the economy, while those of the federal government grow at roughly the same pace. Furthermore, when the federal government wants to adjust its spending, it can just unilaterally cut transfers to the provinces, without any political fallout. That is the fiscal imbalance rule. That means that the federal government can make promises like it did in March when it said that it was going to inject $1.3 billion over three years to help the provinces with new gene therapy treatments. However, nothing prevents the government from eliminating that funding down the road. In so doing, the government strangles the provinces and the provinces are then stuck having to deliver services that they do not necessarily have the funding for. That is completely objective, ideologically neutral information. Take, for example, the Conference Board, which published a report showing that the Canadian federation is not viable in the long term and that the provincial economies are not viable in the Canadian federation, given the fiscal imbalance. That is also a recurring theme in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports, which document how the fiscal imbalance is wreaking havoc, particularly when it comes to health care. I am saying all of this because, if we want a strategy that will really give us a robust health care system that can provide treatment for eye disease, then the we need more funding for health care. I want to make my colleagues aware of something that happened this week. On Tuesday, Liberal and NDP members once again joined forces to remove an additional $2 billion for health care from Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. The NDP and Liberals got together to ensure that $2 billion was cut from health care funding. The Liberal-NDP coalition had an opportunity to partially correct the federal government's lack of investment in health care and to take concrete action, which is what people are calling for, to relieve the overburdened and exhausted health care system. They also had an opportunity to offer treatments for eye diseases that met Quebeckers' expectations, but they decided otherwise. All they have managed to do is disappoint people. Liberal and NDP members voted in favour of an amendment to remove $2 billion in additional health provisions for Quebec and the provinces when Bill C-47 was studied in committee. The amendment was proposed by the Liberal Party and removes additional support for health care in Quebec. I think we should forget all the fine words and promises made by Liberal and NDP members who claim to be concerned about the state of our health care system. Indeed, when it comes time to invest more, they are nowhere to be found. Worse, they are actually cutting billions of dollars from health care, even when those billions were invested unintentionally. I repeat, the best way to have better eye care is to have a robust health care system and health care funding that lives up to the expectations of Quebeckers and Canadians.
1390 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border