- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Montcalm
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $126,025.95
- Government Page
- May/11/23 2:42:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about health transfers.
The provinces said they needed $28 billion a year. The federal government gave them only one-sixth of that amount. That was insulting enough, but that was only to provide care for the current population. That did not take into account the Century Initiative.
The Liberal target is a minimum of 500,000 people per year. What studies have they looked at to determine that Quebec and the provinces can provide health care to at least 500,000 more people every year with one-sixth of the money we already need?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 2:42:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, everyone except the minister knows that the health crisis has been caused by the federal government's chronic underfunding. Quebec and the provinces have calculated that they need an additional $28 billion a year; the government is putting $4.6 billion on the table. His offer guarantees that there will continue to be problems with health care for at least 10 more years. His offer will ensure that health care is chronically underfunded, and he has the gall to say that he expects results.
Does the minister realize that offering so little deprives sick people of basic care?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 2:41:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the federal government promised a substantial offer to support the health care system. Instead, we got a substantial disappointment. The minister knew that Quebec and the provinces needed $28 billion more each year to fix their health care systems. He has barely offered them one sixth of that.
Is the minister seriously trying to say that by offering one sixth of the money needed, he is giving Quebec the means to fix the problems in its health care system?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/23 3:02:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister cannot seem to understand is that health transfers are not a strictly political issue, but rather a human issue.
Burned-out nurses thinking about quitting their jobs, people on waiting lists who are worried about their health, people who are unable to see a doctor for treatment: these people are waiting for a concrete solution that includes a substantial and recurring increase in federal funding, not a PR stunt or political ploy.
After Tuesday's meeting, will the Prime Minister put an end to his chronic underfunding of health care?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/23 3:00:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has been aware of health care funding needs for 28 months now but has not yet done anything about it. We do not need a working meeting on February 7. We need an agreement.
As of right now, 20,000 Quebeckers have been waiting for surgery for a year. We know that each three- to four-week delay in cancer surgery increases the rate of mortality by 6% to 8%.
When will this government understand that increasing health transfers is a vital matter of urgent importance?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 2:43:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, ongoing transfers are what is needed. Everyone knows that.
As the Prime Minister digs in his heels and refuses to engage with his counterparts on the subject of health care funding, 784,000 people are on waiting lists to see a medical specialist and 160,000 people are awaiting surgery. Nearly a million Quebeckers need care but cannot get it because there are not enough resources.
Can the Prime Minister explain to those one million Quebeckers why just meeting with his counterparts to talk about health transfers is too much to ask of him?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois asked that Bill C-32 include a commitment from the government to increase health transfers. Since the third wave of COVID-19, every expert has said that what Quebec and the provinces need is predictability to be able to improve their systems. Short-term and one-time investments are not going to solve the problem.
I would like to ask my colleague what the government is waiting for to meet the needs of Quebec and the provinces, patients and staff. If we want to rebuild our healthcare systems, we need respectable health transfers. We asked for 35%. The provinces spend $200 billion a year on health, while the federal government kicks in $42 billion. Increasing transfers by 10% will not solve the problem.
If health is important to my colleague, does he agree with the unanimous demand made by Quebec and the provinces?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 7:57:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, in his speech, my colleague across the way talked about the fact that the longer we wait to fund the services, the worse the situation will become. In the middle of the third wave, experts came to the Standing Committee on Health to tell us that we absolutely needed to quickly shift from one-time funding to ongoing, stable and predictable funding to reinforce our health networks. There is consensus not just in Quebec, but in every province. Quebec is certainly advocating to have health transfers increased to 35% with 6% indexing.
Will my colleague pressure his government to get that money on the ground as soon as possible? As he said, the situation is deteriorating day by day.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 7:00:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I would like to begin with an aside because I was deeply touched by what my colleague said. If anyone in the House is keenly aware of mental health and illness issues, it is me.
My colleague talked about stigmatization. Michel Foucault's monumental work, A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, made it clear that mental illness had to earn its legitimacy. In other words, mental illness had to be construed as a medical condition. Nowadays, we say “mental health” because we want to avoid the term “mental illness”, but mental illness is an illness like any other. Unfortunately, people with mental illness were locked up, excluded, exploited, put in circuses, put in cages of put on the Ship of Fools. They were dispersed all over the place, set adrift. Foucault's account of the history of madness and how those afflicted were treated paints a dismal picture of human beings.
I rise today to point out that it is not our concerns about mental health and mental illness that divide us. It seems to me that, if we really look at this properly, we would see that this is not the right legislature for taking effective action in this area.
As I said earlier in the preamble to my question, I sometimes get the impression from the minister that we have to reinvent the wheel. Of course, this matter is of particular concern right now, especially because of the postpandemic situation. Mental health has always been the poor cousin of physical health, and there are challenges to be met. Moreover, mental health is one of the weak links in our health care systems, and this became abundantly clear as the pandemic crisis played out. However, none of this justifies the federal government's interfering in something that is none of its concern.
I want the well-being of anyone struggling with illness or mental health problems to be a priority. No one wants that more than I do. Ottawa has to be careful, however, because it is not doing any good or making things better when it meddles in action plans that are already in place. I do not know if the minister is familiar with the 2022-26 interdepartmental mental health plan that was recently adopted by Quebec.
At one point, I had a glimmer of hope. She talked about bilateral child care agreements. I thought that perhaps the minister would be willing to look at what Quebec is doing. Then she would see that the problem in Quebec is not the policies, the goals or the organizational structures, but the money. It is the financial resources that are lacking. There is a lack of resources to hire competent employees and to support certain frontline workers who care for people. I am thinking about employees in community organizations, to name just one sector. I will return to this later.
That was just an aside, and I will now go back to my speech. That said, there are issues there, and I sometimes get the impression that my colleagues are in the wrong legislature. The responsibilities were divided in 1867. It is clear that the federal government currently takes in much more money for its responsibilities than it offers in services. It seems to want to give in to a temptation that has been denounced by every premier who has served the people of Quebec, who form a nation.
That is why we often refer to Quebec's strategies as national strategies. It is not to insult Canada, which is officially recognized as a country. It is just that Quebec is a nation by virtue of its National Assembly, which put strategies in place. Do members know when the first national mental health strategy was implemented? It was in 1980, and it was the first national strategy in the world.
The people of the Quebec nation, through their National Assembly, have been trying to meet mental health needs since 1980. Over time, Quebec has developed its expertise and various national strategies and action plans with the help of many stakeholders, but what it is currently missing is financial resources. When we talk about the interdepartmental plan, that includes a large number of departments. With regard to the consultation that took place in the development of the most recent plan, or the new strategy, we spoke to community groups, researchers, stakeholders, and all segments of the population, including youth, adults, seniors, minority groups and indigenous peoples. We developed that plan in conjunction with many departments and many members of Quebec's interdepartmental working group on homelessness and mental health, including the director of criminal and penal prosecutions, which is important when it comes to Bill C‑5. When we say that we are not going to penalize or incarcerate people because they have addictions, then we need to make sure that part of our informed and comprehensive strategy on mental health involves making sure those individuals do not go to prison, because we know that addictions are often related to mental health. We need to help these people.
Other contributors included the ministry of education, the ministry of advanced education, the ministry of immigration, francization and integration, the ministry of culture and communications; the ministry of families, the ministry of justice, the ministry of public safety, the ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, the ministry of municipal affairs and housing, the ministry of finance, the ministry of transport, the youth secretariat, the indigenous affairs secretariat, the ministry of labour, employment and social solidarity, the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec, the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec, the status of women secretariat, Quebec's treasury board secretariat and the Société d'habitation du Québec.
In Quebec, for the people of Quebec, for our nation, which speaks through its National Assembly, there are at least 10 departments involved in this action plan. We see mental health as an interdisciplinary challenge. Now along comes this government, no doubt well intentioned, with a mandate letter for a minister who wants to help the Quebec nation, the people of Quebec and all the stakeholders I talked about implement this action plan. I hope we will not have to wait long for the money to come through. We have been waiting for health transfers for too long. In my opinion, if the federal government had invested its fair share in health care over the past 30 years, then all of Quebec's existing action plans would probably have strengthened the weak link that was exposed during the pandemic. That is the issue. Our mental health initiatives have to complement one another.
That is why I am asking the minister to work in concert with Quebec rather than exploit mental health just to exert her spending power—
1156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 3:00:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government often boasts that it spent a lot of money on a one-time basis during the pandemic, but that does not solve ongoing problems.
We need the federal government to pay its fair share on a recurring basis. That will make it possible to reduce wait lists, hire more nursing staff and put an end to mandatory overtime. That will make it possible to train and hire psychologists for the public system.
When will this government understand that the future of public, universal health care requires $28 billion in recurring health transfers with an annual escalator of 6%?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 2:59:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, throughout the pandemic, the Prime Minister kept telling Quebec and the provinces that he was prepared to discuss an increase in health transfers, but not until after the pandemic.
The federal government terminated all its health measures yesterday. It is time to address this issue. There is no longer anything to stop the government from tackling the other major public health crisis, namely, the chronic federal underfunding of health care.
The question is simple: When will the Prime Minister convene a summit on increasing health transfers?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 3:37:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, according to Bill C-8, the health transfer escalator will be 3% until 2027. That is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois is against this bill. Quebec and the provinces stand united in demanding that the government cover system costs and increase the health transfer escalator to 6%. All the experts have told us that the system has become more vulnerable than ever and that we need to restore the strength of our health care networks to recover from the pandemic.
Can my colleague tell us whether she agrees with the Liberals’ measure, which seeks to maintain the Harper government's action to reduce the health transfer escalator to 3%?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/22 11:24:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the second point reads that “we need to make sure the conditions of work reflect the care standards our seniors deserve”.
Everyone agrees that we have a collective responsibility to care for our seniors as individuals. However, the conditions of work in long-term care facilities and seniors' residences do not fall under federal jurisdiction. That is the first problem, and I will come back to it.
The third point states that “the management of long-term care facilities is under provincial and territorial jurisdiction”. Here, they are basically admitting that it is none of their business. At least they are acknowledging it.
The motion continues by saying, “we share the goal of ensuring safer, better care for seniors”. Well done. I am very happy to see that the federal government has the same goal as Quebec and the provinces, that is, to ensure better quality care for seniors. That is effectively what Quebec wants.
However, health care is not under federal jurisdiction. If the federal government truly wishes to help the provinces and Quebec, it should convene a summit to discuss a sustainable increase in health care funding and health transfers, as requested unanimously by Quebec and the provinces, which are united on this. I will come back to this point.
The beginning of the second part of the motion states that, “in the opinion of the House, the government should work with the provinces and territories to (i) improve the quality and availability of long-term care homes and beds”. Quebec already has a plan for revamping its health care system. Parliamentary debates will be held to improve the plan, to determine whether it is sound and to look at the pros and cons, but that is the responsibility of the elected members of the Quebec National Assembly, not the House of Commons.
What our health care systems are missing is financial resources, meaningful recurrent investments, and a substantial increase in the federal government's contribution. That means increasing federal health transfers from 22% of system costs to 35% and increasing the escalator from 3% to 6% per year. That is what is being called for by Quebec and the provinces, as well as by many other stakeholders. I will come back to that later.
The second point in the second paragraph of the motion states, “implement strict infection prevention and control measures, including through more provincial and territorial facility inspections for long-term care homes”. Quebec has assessed, and continues to assess, its actions during the pandemic. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebec what to do or how to do it. Besides, the feds do not even have the required expertise. The best solution the federal government can come up with is to take best practices found from coast to coast to coast and impose them, as if that were within its jurisdiction.
The third point in that second paragraph states, “develop a safe long-term care act collaboratively to ensure that seniors are guaranteed the care they deserve, no matter where they live”. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously opposed such federal standards, and let us not forget that the House of Commons voted against imposing standards when the NDP moved a motion in March 2021, in the 43rd Parliament. The Liberals voted against that at the time.
The Liberal Party must be suffering from amnesia, because during this 44th Parliament, it is at it again with this motion. I have to say, since the advent of the NDP-Liberal government, positions have become muddled. One thing remains clear: their appetite for interfering in things that do not concern them.
Has a federal government ever been defeated in an election over issues related to health? The answer is no, because the provision of health care is not a federal responsibility. In Quebec, we have often seen governments get the boot over health-related matters.
Health has been an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces since 1867. Quebec has exclusive authority over health, except when it comes to the health of indigenous peoples, military hospitals, drug approval and quarantines. It is therefore up to Quebeckers to have this debate and make the decision. In a democracy, it is up to voters to sanction their government.
A debate has been raging for months in Quebec over the issue of long-term care and the decisions that were made during the COVID‑19 crisis. That debate is still going on, and it is the Quebec government that will take steps to correct the situation and the public that will decide, this October, if it is satisfied with the actions of its government.
Quebec already has solutions. It does not need the federal government to provide them.
In his November 23, 2021, report, the ombudsman pointed out flaws, but he mostly identified measures that the Quebec government must implement so that this never happens again.
In response to that report, the Quebec government presented its plan for reforming the health care system. The plan includes an array of measures, such as large-scale recruitment, better access to data, the construction of new hospitals, and increased accountability for executives. Additionally, the coroner is still investigating. People are calling for a public inquiry into the situation at long-term care facilities.
In any case, it is up to Quebeckers to take stock of the situation and to fix their system. I have said it before, and I will say it again: Quebec already has standards. Quebec's Act respecting health services and social services includes regulations for long-term care homes. I remind members that 86% of long-term care homes in Quebec are public facilities.
The report prepared by the Canadian Armed Forces at the end of its deployment to Quebec's long-term care homes is clear. There are already plenty of standards and rules for things like contamination prevention and control and PPE. However, that was not enough to stop the virus.
Why was Canada's federal stockpile empty? Why did we send PPE to mainland China when we were about to be hit hard by the virus? The government should answer these questions before lecturing others.
The main reason these rules were more difficult to follow is also very clear: There was a labour shortage. I will quote the Canadian Armed Forces report: “According to our observations, the critical need for CHSLDs is an improved level of staff with medical training”.
If the federal government truly wants to help the provinces and Quebec get through the pandemic and improve care for our seniors, it needs to stop patronizing us. It needs to drop this idea of mandatory national standards that are ill suited to the different social and institutional contexts, and it needs to increase health transfers, which will allow the provinces and Quebec to attract and retain more health care workers.
That is the federal government's job. It needs to increase health transfers. It knows that, but it thinks it can keep making one-time investments instead of recurring investments, even though we need to get through this pandemic.
The Bloc Québécois is steadfast in its demand for the federal government to immediately increase health transfers to 35% of costs and to index them going forward. The Parliament of Canada itself made this demand when it adopted a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers to support the efforts of the governments of Quebec and the provinces, health care workers and the public. All of the premiers have made this demand. The Quebec National Assembly has made this demand. All of the unions, the FTQ, the CSN, the CSQ and the CSD, have made this demand, pointing out that the systemic funding problems facing the provinces and Quebec are hampering Canadians and Quebeckers from accessing the services they need.
On April 4, 2022, the Quebec medical community, including the Fédération des médecins omnipraticiens du Québec, the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec and the Association des médecins hématologues et oncologues du Québec, along with several unions, joined the Bloc in calling on the federal government to hold a public summit on health care funding. All voters across Quebec and Canada want our health care systems to be improved. According to a Leger poll, 85% of voters support the recommendation made by the premiers and their united stance.
This motion is as pointless as the last election. It is not standards that will ensure better care, but rather the funding needed to deliver that care.
1482 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/6/22 3:02:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot dismiss out of hand the expertise of those responsible for health care. They are the backbone of the health care system.
Today, these men and women are calling for a substantial, recurrent, no-strings-attached increase in federal funding. They want to plan the future of health care. They want predictability.
Why will the Prime Minister not immediately commit to participating in a summit with them?
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 2:40:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the people speaking out today are the women and men who care for others every day around the clock.
They want their voices to be heard. They know what they need, because that is their job. They are not here today to play partisan politics. They are here to be invited to share their experience at a public summit on health care funding.
The real experts want to tell us how to care for our people properly, today and tomorrow. Why not accept their offer?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 2:42:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in their agreement, the great experts in the NDP and the Liberal Party chose to tell Quebec and the provinces what they need, specifically how many nurses and doctors should be hired, where the money should go, and how their networks should be managed.
However, the real experts are not on this side of the House, they are not across the way, nor are they sitting next to us. Quebec and the provinces know what they need. As we are on the verge of a sixth wave, will the government finally increase health transfers to 35% with no conditions?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 2:44:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is unanimous. Everyone is asking for increased health transfers with no strings attached.
Quebec and the provinces, whether Liberal, NDP or Conservative, are all in favour of increased health transfers. That is called a consensus.
I am sorry to be the one to say it, but when the government goes up against consensus and unanimity, it is the one picking a fight.
My question for the government and its orange farm team is this: Why pick a fight instead of joining the consensus and increasing health transfers with no strings attached?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/21 9:08:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, once again the minister is sidestepping the question.
The minister wants to impose standards, but he does not have the answers to questions about what is happening on the ground in Quebec. There are 200,000 patients waiting, and some are past the recommended wait time.
The good Dr. Legault, of the FMSQ, said that it will take at least 10 years to clear the backlog. He stated, “The federal government quickly allocated significant funds to cushion the impact of the health crisis on the economy and on the public. We hope that the federal government will be able to provide additional funding to the provinces” to “address the needs of the health care system”, whose sustainability he believes is at risk. He added that “this crisis will not go away in one year or two. It will persist for a long time.”
Does the minister realize that the longer his government waits to invest and transfer money to health care, by which I mean the $28 billion that everyone has agreed is necessary, the more health care costs will skyrocket and the more patients will suffer?
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/21 9:04:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the throne speech was so empty we had a hard time understanding anything about the government's priorities other than its plan to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction.
Since the minister avoided answering my question, I have to assume he is not aware of the work of the Standing Committee on Health. If he were, he would have known that all the experts confirmed that chronic underfunding, thanks to his government and its predecessors, made the health system so fragile that, when the pandemic hit, all the weak links snapped.
Dr. Champagne from Quebec's association of hematologists and oncologists said, “we really need to be concerned about these [diagnostic] delays, because patients and society will pay the price. For 13 of the 17 cancers that were studied, a four-week delay in diagnosis increased the risk of mortality by 6% to 8%”.
The pandemic has created two types of victims: COVID‑19 patients and other patients. The latter are collateral victims. Why is the minister failing to see the urgent need to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%?
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
