44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 05, 2022
- Summary: This bill, Bill C-237, aims to make changes to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. It proposes that a province with a program similar to a federal program in an area under its jurisdiction may choose to withdraw from the federal program. Additionally, the bill seeks to exempt Quebec from the national criteria and conditions set for the Canada Health Transfer. The bill was introduced on February 7, 2022.
- Yea (32)
- Nay (291)
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss our government's priorities in budget 2024. I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.
In my speech today I want to focus on certain priority areas for my residents in Brampton South that I believe this budget responds well to. As I met with families, businesses and organizations in my riding, I have heard about serious issues and challenges that they wanted their federal government to address. Issues such as addressing auto theft, implementing national pharmacare and supporting our youth, seniors and families are just some of the concerns I have heard from my residents. I am going to highlight some effective advocacy of the members on this side of the House that has helped us achieve important progress and fairness in Brampton and for millions of Canadians.
Let me start with the response to auto theft. I have heard through consultation, as well as on the doorsteps of my residents, that we need to work together with all levels of government to urgently respond to this issue. This is exactly what we are doing.
Hundreds of cars have been stolen. Auto theft is not a victimless crime. It harms thousands of Canadians every year. No one should wake up to discover the car they use to get to work, school or the grocery store has been taken from them. This is why the Liberal government is cracking down on auto theft with a robust plan to make it harder to steal and export vehicles.
Members of the 905 caucus, the auto caucus and the Brampton caucus have also advocated for tougher penalties for the offenders, something we have heard from our local law enforcement. This is why the government is also moving forward with harsher penalties under the Criminal Code for those who commit an auto theft-related offence.
Budget 2024 announces the government's intent to amend the Criminal Code to provide additional tools for law enforcement and prosecutors to address auto theft. New criminal offences will be created related to auto theft, such as possession of an electronic device used to steal cars, and new offences for those who involve youth in their crimes.
Most stolen cars leave our country through the ports, and this is where we are putting our attention. Earlier this year, I attended the national summit on combatting auto theft where we raised the concerns of our residents about making sure we take measures to secure our ports. One of the key resolutions of the summit was the commitment of Transport Canada to work with public safety partners to identify cargo-handling risks through targeted security assessments of port facilities.
CBSA has been an important partner in fighting auto theft. Our local Peel Regional Police has one of the largest investigative teams in the country, and we are directing our federal agencies through this funding to increase collaboration on investigations. This includes exploring detection technology solutions and exploring the use of advanced analytical tools, such as artificial intelligence. We will continue our work to protect Canadian families.
Speaking of Canadian families, this budget reinforces an important national program that has already been delivering for thousands of Canadians, which is child care. Before I go any further, I want to recognize the work of our status of women committee on this file in our ongoing study on women's economic empowerment. I also want to take a moment to thank all members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for their hard work.
It is important to do everything we can to support our children. That is why the government launched a Canada-wide affordable child care system in 2021, with the final agreement announced in my riding of Brampton South. We know that more needs to be done to ensure that even more families are able to secure space for their children. This is why budget 2024 proposes to launch a child care expansion loan program. The program would offer low-cost loans and non-repayable contributions to public and not-for-profit child care providers to build more child care spaces and renovate child care centres. The new child care spaces created through the program would increase access to affordable child care in Brampton and across Canada, saving more families thousands of dollars per child every year.
We know that we need to do more to support our children, as nearly one in four do not get enough food. This has real impacts on their opportunities to grow and learn, which is why the federal government is taking decisive action to launch a new national school food program and work with provinces, territories and indigenous partners to expand access to school food programs. The national school food program is expected to provide meals for more than 400,000 kids each year. This program would ensure that our future generations have what they need to grow and help make Canada a better place for all.
As a mother, I know that it is important for us to support our children when they grow up and start their careers. Those of Canada's generation Z need the confidence of knowing they will find a good job that will help them get ahead. To help younger Canadians pursue and achieve their dreams, the government is investing to create more youth job opportunities and ensure that hard work pays off for the next generation. Budget 2024 is proposing that the Government of Canada creates 90,000 youth job placements across the country. That includes a significant expansion of the Canada summer jobs program and the youth employment and skills strategy program.
This would mean that moms and dads in Brampton could count on the availability of good jobs for their children who are starting their careers. These jobs will help students gain much needed work experience and support in areas facing labour shortages, such as health care or in senior homes. In my riding of Brampton South, I know Holland Christian Homes. There are many senior homes where students have worked before, and they will now have the opportunity to work again.
Speaking of our seniors, we know that, after a lifetime of working hard, Canadians deserve to know they have a secure and comfortable retirement. Their golden years are meant to be spent in retirement with their families. Canada's social safety net delivers the promise of a safe and secure retirement for everyone.
Seniors rely on these investments to keep a roof over their heads and food on their plates. The government's largest program, old age security, will deliver security to more than seven million seniors this year, and our government has increased the maximum GIS benefit for single seniors.
Nine provinces and territories have announced agreements with the federal government so far. We have also been working hard on the aging with dignity agreement, which would provide $5.4 billion to include access to home care. After a lifetime of their hard work and helping Canada through some of its toughest times, we have our seniors' backs.
As chair of the all-party diabetes caucus, I am proud of our government's commitments to the national diabetes framework and launching a national pharmacare program. This is something I have been advocating for since I passed my Bill C-237, an act to establish a national framework for diabetes. Our government is now investing in a national pharmacare strategy with a focus on diabetes medication and supplies.
Budget 2024 proposes to provide 1.5 billion dollars over five years, starting in 2024-25, to Health Canada to support the launch of the national pharmacare plan. This investment would save Canadians thousands of dollars per year on contraceptives, as well as diabetes medication and supplies. Improving access to diabetes medication will help improve the health of millions of Canadians. That will reduce the risk of serious life-threatening health complications.
Budget 2024 is delivering fairness for every generation. That is why I urge all members of Parliament to support the passage of the bill.
1358 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be careful of that.
Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic worsened the issue of vision loss in Canada, as eye surgeries were cancelled or delayed. Wait times to see vision care providers also increased over the course of the pandemic. That is why a national strategy for eye care is essential. It would provide a comprehensive road map, laying out a common direction and shared leadership. It would build collaboration among researchers, medical professionals and community organizations to develop innovative approaches to combat eye diseases and preserve sight.
In 2021, the CNIB opened a new centre in Brampton South, providing access to innovative technology and training for Bramptonians with sight loss. It is doing incredible work, and I am confident that Bill C-284 would bring us one step closer to empowering Canadians impacted by blindness with an integrated approach.
As members in this House know, Bill C-237, the National Framework for Diabetes Act, passed unanimously in 2021. I want to touch on how blindness can be a serious complication because of diabetes retinopathy, and I also want to recognize Diabetes Canada's work on this issue as well.
Earlier this year, I met an advocate named Ryan and his dog named Joe. Ryan lives with diabetic retinopathy. He told me about the challenges Canadians with vision impairments face using their insulin pumps. He and many other Canadians are experiencing these hardships, so we need to work together to remove those barriers.
Living with blindness, especially as a result of chronic disease, is an experience that is difficult for people without visual impairment to truly understand. This further underscores the need to have a coordinated strategy so that we can work together with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples and other partners to improve health outcomes. Through this approach, we can proactively identify and intervene in cases of diabetic retinopathy, mitigating the risk of vision loss.
We know that with early intervention and coordinated care, vision loss can be preserved. Of vision loss cases, 75% can be prevented if patients are diagnosed early and have access to treatment. We know that providing hope and better health outcomes for individuals affected by eye diseases is transformational. Already, the Government of Canada is leading and supporting a range of activities related to eye disease prevention and treatment.
I would like to talk about the investments announced in budget 2023 to strengthen our public health care system.
Budget 2023 commits $196 billion in funding to support our health work force; reduce backlogs; expand access to family health, mental health and substance use services; and modernize our health system. This is to ensure provinces and territories can provide the high quality and timely health care Canadians expect and deserve.
We see the surgical backlogs and the impacts on our systems, and we are addressing that need. Surgical backlogs, including vision-related surgeries, are a key part of this plan and are a health system priority of this government. Budget 2023 includes a $2-billion one-time top-up to provinces and territories to address urgent pressures in emergency rooms, operating rooms and pediatric hospitals. In addition, Indigenous Services Canada’s non-insured health benefits program also provides vision care to eligible first nations and Inuit beneficiaries where they are not otherwise covered by other plans or programs.
The government has also made significant investments in vision loss prevention and research. Over the last five years, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has invested approximately $61 million in vision-related research. This research spans the spectrum of prevention, diagnosis, treatment and management of various vision-related conditions.
These investments contribute to the evidence base needed to improve health systems and health outcomes for Canadians experiencing vision loss.
Finally, I wish to highlight that medically necessary vision care services are covered by provincial and territorial health insurance plans. Any vision care service that must be performed in a hospital is covered and supported under Canada’s public health care system. The federal government is committed to continue working with provinces and territories on our shared health priorities, including those related to vision care.
In conclusion, Bill C-284 would allow the Minister of Health to develop a national strategy to support the prevention and treatment of eye disease. It would facilitate engagement with provinces, territories, key stakeholders and partners to ensure that we are all pursuing common objectives in the vision care space, along with sharing best practices. This bill would complement existing work and research efforts, supported by provincial and territorial governments, and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.
Once again, I wish to thank the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek for putting forward this important bill. I know that my residents in Brampton South and, indeed, all Canadians are counting on us to act quickly to prevent and treat eye diseases. I encourage members to vote in favour, as we continue to strengthen our efforts on vision care in Canada.
834 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion lost.
5 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-237 under Private Members' Business.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
28 words
- 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
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
It is indeed a matter for debate, Madam Speaker. Foolishness refers not to the individual but to their arguments. That said, I suppose that, when someone has nothing to say, they can talk about tax havens and point out that they are nowhere to be found in this bill, which focuses on domestic objectives. If the member would like me to go over and explain the bill to him, I would be pleased to do so. However, he should not be saying that the Bloc Québécois wants to privatize the health care system with Bill C‑237. We have heard all sorts of things tonight, but I hope that will stay in the annals of the House of Commons because that is far from being the case. I will get back to my speech because I had prepared one, but when you hear something like that it is hard not to correct the record.
Bill C‑237 addresses a situation that has created friction and tension between the federal and the provincial governments ever since the Constitution Act of 1867 was passed. It is nothing new.
I am talking about respect for the division of powers between the two levels of government. Basically, according to the pact that was made at the time, in 1867, between the two levels of government, each respective area of jurisdiction should be equal and sovereign. This arrangement served to ensure that the priorities of the majority Canadian nation were not imposed on the minority Quebec nation. We are a long way from that today, in 2022.
For issues that directly affect people and the way they organize their society, jurisdiction was directly delegated to the provinces. These include things like health care, social programs, education and culture. For issues that are somewhat removed from the people or the internal organization of their society, the respective areas of jurisdiction were centralized directly under the federal government. This means things like monetary policy, international trade, border defence, and so on.
These terms are protected by the ironclad Constitution and the inviolable division of powers. Quebeckers accepted that agreement, but as I have said before and will say again, members of the federation are supposed to work together, not impose conditions, which is what we are seeing now. The government is using that to make political gains that undermine jurisdiction. It is taking over our child care system and trying to impose conditions on us. We cannot be sure it will transfer that to us. Next is health care. I bet that before too long there will be big federally funded parks all over the place. The government is going to take away all our power over social programs. That is this federal government's current agenda.
That is why we need to take a very close look at the relationship between both levels of government now, 155 years after the original agreement, the Canadian Constitution, came into effect. Inevitably, we will find that, for the past three generations, the federal government has been violating an agreement that goes back to the birth of the federation. I will explain this in a simple two-step process.
First, the federal government uses its taxing power to raise taxes higher than is required to fulfill its own constitutional responsibilities. In doing so, it also prevents Quebec and the provinces from using this tax room. This is called fiscal imbalance.
Second, the federal government uses its surplus profits, which it controls, to spend and create programs in areas under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction. In addition to controlling this money, which is normally intended for different areas and jurisdictions, it goes so far as to impose conditions on the transfer of funds. In concrete terms, this means that the federal government, the Canadian government, uses this practice to decide how Quebec society and the other provinces are set up. It also forces the government of Quebec and the provinces to implement the priorities of Canadians rather than the priorities of Quebeckers in areas under their own jurisdiction.
As I said, it is supposed to be a collaboration, not simply imposing conditions. In this case, Canada's vision and will are being imposed to the detriment of Quebec's will and vision. Quebec never agreed to become Ottawa's subcontractor. Nowadays, it is clear that Ottawa is interfering in areas of jurisdiction. It pays off politically, by the way.
There is unbridled interference going on in areas such as housing, education, family policy, day care services, the environment and taxation. Interference has become the federal government's hallmark.
The federal government has a strong tendency to use its power to spend money and surreptitiously exploit shared jurisdictions. The Bloc Québécois has had enough, which is why it decided to introduce Bill C‑237.
If passed, this bill will give Quebec and the provinces a way to counter this interference, which violates the constitutional agreement on which the country was founded. The original agreement is no longer being respected. Can we get this straightened out? We have no choice. We are being taken for fools. We have no autonomy anymore. We send our money to the federal government, but then it says it will not transfer the money unless we comply with its conditions.
In practical terms, Bill C‑237 makes two amendments. I urge my colleagues to listen carefully, because they have been saying all kinds of things about this bill. First, the bill will amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act between the government and the provinces. This will affect all of the provinces, not just Quebec. It will give all provinces the option of withdrawing from a federal program.
Furthermore, in the spirit of compromise, the government will provide matching funds to the province or Quebec, but only if the objectives of the program in question are comparable to those of the federal program. The program in the province or in Quebec does not have to be identical or even similar. It must be comparable. The funds are to be given unconditionally, without criteria and without any other form of interference.
I see that my time is up. I therefore invite the members to give Quebec and each province the freedom to make their own choices, by themselves and for themselves.
1064 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 rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-237. The NDP supports some aspects of this bill. However, it is surprising to see the extremely negative impact it would have on the universality of our health care system. I will come back to that in a moment. Considering the bill as a whole and all the detrimental effects it would have on the health care systems in Quebec and Canada, we will be voting against it.
I want to talk about the positive aspects of the bill first. The idea of making budget cuts to health care and health transfers was put forward by the Conservatives. It was irresponsible to make those cuts to the health care system, in our view. The only thing the Conservatives seem to want to do is to keep making cuts to public services. The impact these cuts have had on our health care system is being felt in Quebec, British Columbia and everywhere. That has really hurt our health care system.
There was a change of government in 2015. However, the Liberals continued to make cuts. The two traditional parties, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, do not understand that when we do not invest money in the system, the system suffers.
The NDP absolutely wants that funding restored, and an NDP government would do that immediately. We would ensure that the health care system receives the funding that Canadians across the country deserve.
As we have already said, the tax haven system that the Conservatives created with the help of the Liberals, and that the Liberals have allowed to carry on with the help of the Conservatives, costs us $25 billion a year. The government cannot claim that we do not have the resources required to fund the health care system. All we need is for the Liberals and the Conservatives to reduce their assistance to the banking system. All this does is help the big Canadian banks increase their profits.
Naturally, we agree on that aspect of the funding proposed in the bill.
We also agree with the second aspect, which has to do with the provinces' right to opt out of new federal programs it does not like and obtain financial compensation. That is part of the Sherbrooke Declaration, which the NDP has always stood for. We have been crystal clear about our stance on Quebec's right to opt out of new federal programs for years.
That second aspect of the bill was no doubt inspired by the NDP's work in the House of Commons, so of course we are in favour of it.
Let us now talk about the third aspect, which would have such a negative impact on the health care system that we cannot understand why it would be in a bill. Polls indicate that two-thirds of the people who vote for the Bloc Québécois want a national pharmacare system. They want that universality, but the Bloc's bill would change the five principles that are the foundation of our public health system.
Let us look at the five principles the Bloc wants Quebec to be exempt from even though the vast majority of Quebeckers support these principles. First, the principle of universality. The Bloc Québécois wants to cut that out so it does not apply going forward.
The principle of universality is one of the foundations of our health care system. Everyone agrees that each and every Canadian is entitled to medicare. It seems they want to abolish that principle. I do not know whether it is a misunderstanding or whether the Bloc Québécois wants to privatize our public system.
The second principle that the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish is the comprehensiveness of the system, which means that all medically necessary services are covered by the public system. This is another one of the foundations of our medicare in Quebec and everywhere else, including British Columbia. They want to get rid of this value.
As my colleagues may know, I have lived in Saguenay‑Lac‑Saint‑Jean, in the Eastern Townships, in Montreal and in the Outaouais. In all the years I spent in these various regions of Quebec, I never met anyone who would support the idea of eliminating the comprehensiveness of our public system.
The third principle that the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish is accessibility. It is a basic principle of our Canadian health care system and Quebec's health care system. By wanting to eliminate the accessibility of the system, the Bloc Québécois is once again going against the will of Quebeckers.
The fourth principle that the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish is portability. This is a very important foundation of our health care system. As we have already seen, it means that people can go to British Columbia and have access to that province's public health care system.
Yes, some improvements certainly are needed. It is well known that some provinces, including Quebec, have problems with the reimbursement of fees paid in other provinces. There was a case like this recently in British Columbia. The principle of the portability of health care must not be abolished; it must be improved. This means that Quebec and British Columbia must be forced to pay these fees promptly. This is an extremely important part of our system.
The fifth principle that the Bloc Québécois seems to want to abolish is the public administration of our system. Hospitals and health care plans must be administered by a public non-profit organization. This is also a fundamental value. I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish this principle of public administration of the system.
Of course, there is still room for improvement. We fully support an increase in health transfers. Furthermore, the NDP has always advocated for the provinces' right to opt out with full compensation.
However, we cannot support the idea of eliminating these five principles that are the cornerstones of the Quebec and Canadian public health systems. Those of us on this side of the House do not see that in a positive light. The NDP is a progressive party and, unlike other parties, we do not support the privatization of our public health care system. As we all know, the American health care system is private, and it costs far more than the public system. Tens of millions of Americans are being left behind by their health care system.
We must maintain our public health care system and always protect the five principles on which our health care system is based. The NDP will steadfastly and rigorously uphold these principles.
1151 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 am very pleased to see you back here in the House. I sincerely hope you had a nice summer. It was probably much like mine, with a lot of time spent resolving problems with passport applications. Of course, we always enjoy helping our constituents.
We are considering a bill with noble goals and intentions. Bill C-252 deals with the prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at little children. I am pleased to speak to the bill because I will probably be at the standing committee on health for the clause-by-clause study. There are a number of items that I will be very interested in looking at; I will come back to that later.
First, we must acknowledge that there is an obesity problem among adults and children. If we believe a report from the public health officer for Quebec dating from 2016, the trend is still clear. Fully 52% of the population is overweight. Approximately 18% of people are obese, and that is also true among children between the ages of two and 17. In children aged two to 17, the prevalence of obesity or excess weight has increased from 15% to 26% over time. The diagnosis is clear. We need to act. I think there is a role for public policy-makers and governments to play. That is essentially what this bill does, without claiming to fix everything.
We know the long-term consequences of childhood obesity. There is no clear cause-and-effect relationship, but we do know that there is an epidemiological link to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, musculoskeletal conditions and certain cancers. Preventing these diseases becomes even more important. Obviously, this is a prevention bill. However, the Liberal government, which includes the member who introduced this bill, refuses to give Quebec and the provinces the health transfers they are calling for in order to be able to provide people with the necessary care.
I would therefore encourage my colleague to pressure her caucus and her government. I know her well because her riding is not far from mine. I know her constituents are like mine. They think health transfers are important. I also know she has a member of the National Assembly in her riding, one of the MNAs who unanimously called for health transfers. It is important to listen, but it is also important to look ahead, and there are a lot of good things in this bill.
Some will see this as proof the government thinks it knows everything. They will see the bill as a socialist conspiracy. That is pretty much what my Conservative colleague was insinuating.
I can actually hear a small child in the House of Commons. That child may one day be protected by this piece of legislation.
Children cannot differentiate between information and persuasion. Their brains are not capable of it. The Standing Committee on Health heard from the president of the Association des pédiatres du Québec about child development. Children begin to distinguish persuasion from content around four or five years of age, but it is not until they reach seven or eight that they can really tell the difference between ads and content. They may not really understand until they are 11 or 12.
Most of the time, these ads are not meant to convince anyone, to provide information or to help consumers make informed decisions. It is persuasion aimed at children who are not in a position to make rational and informed decisions, which is why we need to support them.
I can assure the House that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill and this principle. I think it is a good thing. This bill is also consistent with the Quebec government's 2019 action plan to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and promote water. Water can be drunk, but oil cannot. The Quebec government states in its report that the consumption of sugary drinks and the marketing practices that promote their consumption must be de-normalized. There is, after all, a cause and effect relationship.
Of course, someone in Alberta could always make comparisons and think they are just as thin as a Quebecker, and wonder why Quebeckers have advertizing laws. Such statements do not work. These statistics and comparisons between different jurisdictions are pretty shaky. This is counterfactual thinking, and these arguments are pretty weak. At the very least, it is hard to imagine that this bill will make the situation any worse.
Quebec's policy was obviously designed to prompt a reduction in the consumption of sugary drinks. The Bloc Québécois is here in Parliament to express the consensus of the Quebec National Assembly, the vision of Quebeckers and the vision of the Government of Quebec. It would be consistent with our mission in the Bloc Québécois to support this bill, at least at second reading so that it can be sent to committee.
This bill also reflects the recommendations made by the WHO in 2010. The Government of Quebec was not alone in considering this issue. This WHO report applies to the whole world, not just Quebec. One of the recommendations made by the WHO in its 2010 report reads as follows: “Given that the effectiveness of marketing is a function of exposure and power, the overall policy objective should be to reduce both the exposure of children to, and power of, marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids...”. In short, we need to take action.
Experts have recognized that there is a link between marketing and consumption. We are not saying that it is a definitive link. We are saying that there is a link and we must act. That is consistent with the Quebec government's position, the Quebec government's strategy, the WHO's position and how the Bloc Québécois has voted in the past. I am thinking in particular of Bill C‑237, which, I believe, was passed unanimously by the House of Commons at first or second reading. We are being consistent with our past voting and support. We will continue in that vein with the bill being studied. There is also Bill C‑228 on food and beverage marketing directed at children; it died on the Order Paper.
It is only fitting that we support this bill. I invite my colleagues, including the Conservatives, to vote in favour of this bill. Let us support it because as parliamentarians we know that second reading is not a final step. If there are concerns to be addressed, corrections to be made and discussions required, I can assure my colleague on the Standing Committee on Health that she will find a colleague ready to work constructively on this bill, which I find quite promising. I know that it is well intentioned. Let us refer it to committee.
We are looking for some assurances in committee. First of all, Quebec did not help develop the federal, provincial and territorial framework for action to promote healthy weights. Quebec does not endorse any pan-Canadian response that encroaches on its jurisdictions, so we will have to ensure that this holds true for this bill. Furthermore, Quebec alone is responsible for developing and implementing programs to promote a healthy lifestyle within its borders. I say that, but, at first glance, it does not appear that the bill currently under consideration encroaches on our jurisdiction.
Plus, a simple reminder that Quebec has full jurisdiction over health matters, which I feel needs to be pointed out every day, if not every hour. Furthermore, we must ensure that the bill will not interfere with Quebec's jurisdiction over civil law. Section 248 of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act already prohibits advertising directed at children.
The bill does not seem to go much further, except that the Quebec legislation does not currently regulate store windows, displays, containers, packaging, labels, and so on. Some procedures will therefore need to be reviewed. Perhaps we will find out why my Conservative colleagues do not like the Quebec legislation.
I have said it many times and I will say it agin. The intention is good. The public health objective is good. The reasoning behind the bill is quite rational and well thought out. Now, once again, as is often the case with issues related to health legislation, there is a fine line between Quebec's jurisdiction and the federal government's jurisdiction. However, it is obviously worth it, because the health of our children is of the utmost importance. It is worth passing this bill at second reading, sitting down and studying it diligently. I invite all my fellow parliamentarians to do just that.
1472 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on this 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. It would allow any province to withdraw from a federal program in provincial jurisdiction if comparable programs exist, and 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 of the Canada Health Act. The act was passed unanimously in the House of Commons in 1984 and 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 an 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, meet and in some cases go beyond the requirements of the Canada Health Act.
That leads me to the first concern our government has with this 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 health care. For provinces to receive full Canada health 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 from provinces in contravention of the five principles, have 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 amendment 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 asymmetric 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 responsibilities in planning, organizing and managing health services.
512 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would remind the House that even if the bills are paid, dental care is part of the health care system and therefore a provincial jurisdiction. This is therefore not the place for that debate.
We are all for people receiving dental care. It makes no sense that people cannot afford dental care or have to choose between oral health and food or rent because they do not have enough money. By the same token, we want seniors to be well cared for in long-term care facilities, and we want everyone to benefit from pharmacare. If we want to talk about that, I invite my hon. colleagues to step down and run for the National Assembly or their legislative assembly to talk about this legislative measure in the right place. The role of members of the House of Commons is to determine whether we will provide them adequate funding or not.
According to my notes, the government member said that, with this bill, all we are trying to do is reduce the central government's power.
He is talking about the national government, but for us, our national government is the National Assembly in Quebec City. He spoke about weakening the federal government's role, even though it continues to overstep and expand its reach. To do things in its own way, our national government in Quebec City tries to work within its areas of jurisdiction as established by the Constitution.
We now see Ottawa cutting its share of funding and increasing the number of standards. That is exactly what the government member told us. That was his direct response. What is then Ottawa's vision in the face of my nation's right to exist? The federal government will continue to suffocate us with standards and keep shoving them down our throat. This means my nation will not exist on its own, it will have to become part of the whole. As we saw in the budget, if we want to discuss funding, we must first discuss standards. It is about standardization. There is therefore less room for my nation in this federation.
The member was talking about hip surgeries. Is it up to Ottawa to be talking about hip surgeries when this falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces? It makes no sense. It is pretentious and paternalistic. As I was saying, this is a boss-employee relationship. This is not just coming from separatists. Quebec's entire health care community has rejected this.
I thank the members from the Conservative Party for their speeches and for showing up in such large numbers, considering that this an important evening of debate for their party. I do not think that a royal recommendation is required for Bill C‑237. I will not have the time to speak to this in great detail, but, essentially, we are not asking for new funding to be allocated. We are asking for the existing funding to be reallocated. This is not about allocating the money to another objective. When Quebec has a comparable program, the money is transferred and, presumably, it will be used to fund the same service. We are not adding anything or diverting the funding. Therefore, in my opinion, a royal recommendation is not needed in this case. I have good arguments in support of this.
First, I would like to point out that the bill presented by the dean of the House does not require any new spending. Second, it does not change the transfer amounts, nor does it change the names of the recipients or how the funding is allocated to them, and it does not change the purpose of the transfer. For example, the Canada health transfer will still be dedicated to paying for health care. The same is true for other transfers that are allocated to a province if it has a program whose objectives are comparable—that is the key word—to those of a federal program. It does not force the executive's hand, which retains the latitude and discretion required to transfer the funds. That prerogative remains in place. The executive will decide whether the province has a comparable program and will determine whether the province is complying with the conditions set out in the Canada Health Act.
Finally, precedents are on my side. I do not have time to go into detail, but there have been many bills that have changed the normative framework without having any financial implications per se. None of them required a royal recommendation.
In the end, the House recognized my nation, which speaks French. Now it must follow through on that recognition. The government is attempting to do so in a modest way, to follow through on this recognition in a modest way with a modest bill.
What we are hearing is that all the federalist parties are going to vote against it. That gives us a good idea of our options for our collective political future.
838 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
For dental care, it is about paying the bills, not giving—
An hon. member: There is no debate.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House have enough faith in our nation that we do not need know-it-all Ottawa and its federal shield to guarantee that medicare remains public. We have faith that we can do it ourselves.
From what I understand, and the member for Winnipeg North did the best job explaining this from the government's perspective, the other parties see the relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments, in this case the Government of Quebec, as a boss-employee relationship. The boss demands accountability from the employee and sets conditions. A mere employee could decide to privatize the entire system but still needs the boss, in this case, paternalistic Ottawa. That is what I am seeing. We said that the NDP's position is centralist, and we have just seen proof once again.
When the member for Winnipeg North was talking, he was speaking on behalf of the government and he said that he was defending his nation, “our nation”. That is all well and good, but what about our own nation, the Quebec nation? Some time ago, the House recognized Quebec as a nation. What does that mean? How is the government walking the talk? How is it following through on its recognition?
In this Canada, is my nation only free to follow the rules and instructions set out by know-it-all Ottawa? That means a one-size-fits-all approach from coast to coast to coast, with the same criteria and the same methods. However, our nation is different and has its own special characteristics. Nevertheless, we were told no, that we have to fit into the mould. That is what we saw and what we are seeing more and more.
The government member pointed out that the separatists are the ones who want this. I would like to remind him that, yes, we are separatists, but then so is the rest of Quebec, because there is a consensus on this issue. Indeed, in the federation and federalism, there are powers and jurisdictions, and they must be respected. The various Liberal governments who have sat in Quebec City have asked for the same thing: Jean Charest, his minister Benoît Pelletier, Liberal finance minister Yves Séguin, as well as Coalition Avenir Québec, and of course, the Parti Québécois. Quebec's health care sector is no different. There is a unanimous consensus, and everyone knows it.
As my excellent colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel said when he introduced Bill C‑237, health care funding was originally split 50-50. In the 1990s, the government started cutting, and ever since then, health care systems everywhere have been ailing. This is a serious problem.
Ottawa is not contributing its fair share, and now that things are not going well, Ottawa is telling the provinces and Quebec that they should be doing things a certain way. Fundamentally, the problem is that Ottawa is not respecting provincial jurisdictions and is contributing less than it can to the system.
I thank my colleague for introducing Bill C‑237 in the House so that we can debate it. Can Quebec exist in Confederation, have a chance to do things its way, and have its freedom? The question is, is this a federation made up of several nations and will the Quebec nation be able to do things its way without Ottawa constantly bossing it around? That is really all this is about, and I thank my colleague for getting us to this point.
I think we need even more freedom than what is being asked for here, but this would be significant progress. I can see my colleague, the dean of the House, nodding in agreement.
What did the government say when we proposed that Quebec have a little more autonomy? It talked about standards for long-term care facilities, pharmacare managed by Ottawa, dental care managed by Ottawa. The government said it was Ottawa's responsibility to make sure it all worked. It said—
690 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to be here today to rise and speak to the private member's bill of my hon. colleague for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.
I want to take this opportunity to thank our dean of the House for his service to our nation. It is a great honour to be able to address the hon. member. I was six years old when he was elected to this place and, I will note, as a Progressive Conservative.
I would like to say to him that his constituents, Quebec and Canada thank him for his years of dedicated, effective and thoughtful service.
That being said, he has 337 members gunning for his job, myself included.
If I ever do have the pleasure of serving as long as my hon. colleague, that would put me at a very young 80 years of age in this place. It is perhaps divine providence that I am the official opposition shadow minister for seniors.
To get to the point at hand, transfer payments are an essential component of Canadian federalism.
As such, I can certainly appreciate any member's efforts to increase payments for their constituency. It is a massive part of what we are all sent here to do.
My hon. colleague has had the honour and privilege of serving in this chamber for over 37 years straight, so he knows the rules of this place and he has surely had the opportunity to introduce and speak to many bills.
My concern today is not with the approach taken by our hon. dean of the House, who I think is only doing his very best to care for his constituents. My concern is with his method.
One rule in particular, as I am sure we are extremely aware, because the Speaker ruled on this recently, is that private members' bills cannot propose the expenditure of public funds or tax-raising initiatives unless they have a royal recommendation.
Standing Order 79(1) states:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
I may be ignorant to the goings-on behind the scenes, but to my knowledge, this particular piece of legislation has not received the required royal recommendation.
My good friend from Winnipeg North, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, rose on a point of order to share his concerns about the content of this bill. In his opinion, this bill was actually a spending bill.
The Chair said the following in response to the point of order.
I reviewed the bill, and I have reached the following conclusions concerning the impact on the royal recommendations.
Section 1 of the bill provides that Quebec need not apply the conditions set out in paragraph 24(a) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in order to obtain the amounts referred to in subsection 24.1(1) of that act. Section 3 of Bill C-237 provides that Quebec receives the full monetary contribution provided for in the Canada Health Act without being subject to the various grant conditions set out in that act. In other words, the result of the mechanism proposed by Bill C-237 would be to exempt Quebec from having to fulfill the conditions to which it is currently subjected in order to receive the Canada health transfer, which originate in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act.
[Translation]
The member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel argued that these changes have no financial effect in terms of either the amounts or their destination. However, these changes would amend the terms and conditions initially attached to the Canada health transfer, which were approved by Parliament.
On this, page 838 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states:
A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.
As the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel indicated in his intervention, the bill seeks to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canada Health Act. Thus, after analysis and in keeping with the precedents, including the rulings by Speaker Milliken on May 8, 2008, and by my predecessor on December 6, 2016, the Chair is of the opinion that the implementation of Bill C-237 would contravene the conditions initially provided for in the royal recommendation. Accordingly, the Chair is of the view that Bill C-237 must be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
As it stands now, this bill does not have a royal recommendation. Unlike my hon. colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, I am new to the House. I may not be as aware of how things work in this place, but I think is it safe to assume that, if a royal recommendation has not yet been given at this stage then it will not be given later.
We all know how this will play out. As it stands now, this bill cannot and will not be put to a vote at third reading.
I want to use the closing portion of my speech to reiterate that my objection to this bill is rooted in the manner through which it was brought before the House. I want to reiterate that I know my hon. colleague from the Bloc is a tireless advocate for the people of Quebec, as is evidenced by his electoral record. I will go so far as to say that his constituents are lucky to have him. His knowledge, experience and record of service are quite literally uncomparable with those of any member of this place.
That being said, the rules of Parliament are the rules of Parliament. Our Standing Orders are our Standing Orders. They explicitly lay out the rules and regulations under which we operate, and based on the Speaker's decision, the future of this bill is crystal clear. It is a spending private member's bill that does not have a royal recommendation. As such, I will not be voting for it.
1140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I indicated, this is a piece of legislation that I could never support in any sort of circumstance. I guess it is because, offhand, I believe that the constituents of Winnipeg North understand, appreciate and want the federal government to play a strong leadership role on health care in Canada.
I suspect there are reasons why the Bloc, which is a separatist party, wants to see Canada get away with health care, just as there are even separatists who exist outside of the province of Quebec. For me personally, and on behalf of a vast majority of the residents I represent in Winnipeg, I can say that Canadians love our health care system.
The Canada Health Act is one of the things that enables us to have a high sense of pride in who we are as a nation. It is often referred to as one of the things that makes us different from the United States and many other countries around the world. Because we are a caring society, we understand and appreciate the value of the health care system that we have today. Whether in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, Atlantic Canada or in Northwest Territories, there is a basic understanding that health care services are going to be there for people.
My family, like millions of other families in Canada, is not just in one province. We live in other provinces. The heritage of my own family goes back to the province of Quebec itself. I believe that it is not unique to Winnipeg North, but that Canadians in every region of our country understand and appreciate the true value of a national health care system. Yes, it is administered by provinces. I know that. I used to be the health critic in the Province of Manitoba.
When the member says that all provinces want more money and they all agree, I have news for that member: They have been wanting more money every year for the past 30 years. Ottawa is more than just an ATM: Ottawa has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that provinces and territories respect the Canada Health Act.
There are things that we can learn from the pandemic that I believe Canadians want us to look at. One of those issues is long-term care. We saw, during the pandemic, different provinces having different levels of difficulty. In some of those provinces, we had to call in the military. In other provinces, we used the Red Cross. In my own province, in fact in Winnipeg North, we can look at the Maples Long Term Care Home facility. Canadian politicians on all sides of the House, maybe not the Bloc but all other sides of the House, recognized that there were some serious issues in long-term care. I can say that Liberal members of Parliament understand what Canadians expect of their members of Parliament. Dealing with long-term care is one of those. That is why we see a very strong advocacy for standards in long-term care. It is because we care about what is happening with our seniors in care facilities.
We also care about mental health. If we do not do anything on mental health, some provinces will fall far behind. Some provinces might move a bit ahead. I would argue, again, that the national government has a very strong and important role to play on mental health.
We saw in this budget, with the support of my New Democratic friends, talk about expanding into dental care. We will see how that ultimately evolves.
I have talked for years now about the issue of pharmacare and the cost of pharmaceuticals. If we think about an individual who goes to the hospital, while people are in the hospital, they get free medication, but when they leave the hospital, they have to pay for it. Often what happens is that they cannot afford the medication, so they end up back in the hospital.
The idea of looking at best practices in different provinces and territories and trying to encourage and promote them in a national standard, I see as a good thing. Trying to marginalize the role of the national government does a disservice to who we are as a nation. I would recommend to those who would advocate that Ottawa should not play a role in health care to talk to some Canadians about it; I have. If they ask them what makes them feel good about being a Canadian, one of the most common responses members will get is “health care”. They will talk about the importance of health care, and justifiably so.
I am concerned about the backlog of surgeries coming out of the pandemic. Because of all the focus that was put on COVID-19 and the impact it was having on intensive care units and other facilities, a lot of surgeries were delayed or put off. We can imagine a person needing a hip replacement who already had to wait a considerable amount of time, or a person who had been diagnosed with cancer. These are very important issues for our constituents.
However, Bloc members are saying, “Who cares? It is not about Ottawa. All Ottawa does is pony up the cash and let the provinces take responsibility”, believing that all provinces will do that. I say shame on the members of the Bloc for believing that. Canadians, even some of their own constituents, recognize the value of Ottawa and the leadership role it can play in the delivery of health care services, even in the province of Quebec.
There are different provinces with different governments at different times, but I think Canadians want a health care system that will be there for them no matter where they live in Canada. Many people have moved to the province of Quebec from Manitoba, and I suspect vice versa. I believe that when we take a look at the needs that are there for health care, the federal government should not be sidelined. The federal government should be encouraged to continue to play that leadership role and look at different provinces.
When we want to talk about accountability on health care and the Canada Health Act, I will go back to the Romanow report of many years ago. There was the idea that as part of the five fundamental principles, we should add an additional one about financial accountability. I think we do need to see more financial accountability. I am glad that Ottawa looks at it from the perspective of saying, “Look, if we want to enhance mental health, one of the ways we could encourage that is to tag dollars to the provinces to facilitate and ensure that there is more investment in mental health.” Again, that is a good thing, contrary to what some of the separatists, whether from Quebec or other jurisdictions, want to see happen.
Like the vast majority of Canadians, I believe in the importance of health care and national programs. I am glad that we have seen under this administration record-high amounts of dollars being delivered to provinces in order to provide health care. We are talking about a record amount of dollars. Historically, never has a government invested more dollars in health care than this current government. We have health care agreements with all of the provinces, which is something that has not been there for a number of years.
This is a government that is committed to Canada's health care system, and I am very proud to be a part of that.
1274 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
