SoVote

Luc Thériault

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Bloc Québécois

Montcalm
Quebec
Voting Attendance: 64%
Expenses Last Quarter: $126,025.95

Government Page

Feb/8/23 4:35:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to say that my thoughts are with the friends and families of the children and adults who were the victims of the terrible tragedy at Garderie éducative Ste‑Rose in Laval. I think we are all in shock following this terrible incident, and words fail us. I cannot imagine what the parents of the children who go to this day care are feeling. I want them to know that we are with them. I have had the privilege of representing the people of Montcalm since 2015. It is as much an honour for me today as it was the first day. During the first oral question period in which I participated, the member for Rivière-du-Nord asked for an increase in health transfers. Members will recall that, in 2011, the Harper government cut the health transfer escalator in half, reducing it from 6% to 3%. That was grossly insufficient to cover system costs. By 2015, we were feeling the repercussions of that decision. I have had the privilege of sitting in the House for almost eight years, and all that time, we have been constantly repeating that health transfers must increase. Two years ago, Quebec and the provinces agreed to call for an increase in health transfers that would raise the federal government's share of health care funding from 22% to 35%. The way things are going, Quebec and the provinces will not be able to provide quality health care to the public. If Ottawa underfunds health care, which is what it is doing, then there are three possible scenarios. Either health services decline, other government services decline because the governments of Quebec and the provinces have to use their own money to make up for Ottawa's cutbacks, or provincial debt spikes and the fiscal imbalance gets worse. Those are the three scenarios Quebec and the provinces are facing because of this lack of federal funding: deterioration of health services; underfunding of other government programs, including education, social services, roads and culture; or a growing fiscal imbalance. That is the choice that the federal government made by refusing to consider the premiers' legitimate and necessary demands. It has been putting the provinces on the road to austerity for 10 years. Worse yet, the government is jeopardizing the quality of the services provided to the public. As the leader of the Bloc Québécois rightly said, the gap between the premiers' demand and this government's offer, which really ought to be called an ultimatum, should not be calculated in dollars. No, it should be calculated in terms of the number of people who will be abandoned. How many surgeries will be postponed? How many nurses and orderlies will be left to fend for themselves most of the time? What heartbreaking decisions will the health ministers in Quebec and the rest of Canada have to make in order to balance their budgets in a tight fiscal environment? For years, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have been raising the matter by moving opposition motions, appearing with health care professionals, and tabling unanimous motions adopted by Quebec's National Assembly. We have asked questions relentlessly and reiterated the need to support exhausted and overworked health care workers. We have spoken about the tragedies unfolding in oncology and pediatric departments and the patients forced to wait months and months at the risk of their health, and sometimes even their lives. The government said that our colleague was right and that that is why it was investing money, because it is so important. If it is that important, then it needs to invest the money because people are dying as we speak. Yesterday, the government demonstrated that all it is capable of doing is saying the right thing, nothing more. The minister was also eloquent earlier. Ottawa let its chequebook do the talking. It did not have much to say, other than that the provinces should just deal with it. Its offer is despicable. I say its offer, but when it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation, then it is more like an ultimatum. Its ultimatum is a 5% escalator for five years. I would remind the House that before the Harper era, it was 6%. They are not even going back to the Martin era. They are fixing the escalator issue, but only partly, because the cost of the system is now counted in sick people. The aging population has put more pressure on the system, and the direct impact this has on health costs needs to be taken into consideration. We are talking about a 5% escalator for five years. The Prime Minister did not need to meet with the premiers of Quebec, the provinces and the territories to do that. He could have done it whenever he wanted to, unilaterally, just like when Stephen Harper unilaterally lowered the escalator from 6% to 3%. The Prime Minister could have announced this on his own, without an agreement. The provinces were calling for an additional $28 billion a year for health. The federal government's response was $4.6 billion and that was its final offer. The government would have us believe that this is good news. Does the government have any mission more sacred than taking care of people? There are people who are sick, health care workers who are at the end of their rope. What is more important than being there for them? The Liberals would have us believe that they know more about health care needs than the health ministers for Quebec and the provinces and territories, that they know where to invest the money and how much is needed. We are supposed to believe that the people who are not even capable of managing passports, managing borders and paying employees know how to fix the health care systems in Quebec and across the country. That is ridiculous. Quebec and the provinces needed a minimum of $280 billion over ten years. That was the minimum. Ottawa responded with $46 billion. That is a minimum shortfall of $230 billion in the coming years. Basically, the federal government announced yesterday that the underfunding of health care will continue for the next 10 years. That is it, and that is all. The Liberals promised us a big offer, but all we got was a big disappointment. Sick people in Quebec and Canada are the ones who will pay the price.

1100 words

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Dec/6/21 12:54:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government did not wait for the Liberal government to pass a law to deal with these types of protests held near institutions. That said, I would be remiss if I did not remind my distinguished colleague of the reason why we find ourselves discussing Bill C-3 about two weeks before Christmas. Earlier, the government referred to the 2019 report from the Standing Committee on Health on violence faced by health care workers. The report, issued two years ago, pointed out that seven out of 10 workers were experiencing deteriorating mental health. The fear and intimidation is only going to worsen their situation if they return to the system. We are clearly in favour of the principle of such a bill. However, why do we find ourselves today with a government that called an election, dragged its feet on recalling Parliament after the election, and consequently delayed other very important bills, in particular the bill in memory of Émilie Sansfaçon, which sought to give people with cancer up to 50 weeks of EI sickness benefits? This also had an impact on the work of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. It had one year to submit its report, but it will have barely four months to discuss such a critical issue. Does my colleague not find it hard to be part of a government that puts off critical and important problems like these?

242 words

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Dec/6/21 11:29:52 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, since I have not yet had the opportunity to do so, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. I am sure that you will be up to the task of ensuring that the debates run smoothly. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on something that I have been thinking about. Does he not believe that, had the government not taken so long to bring Parliament back after calling an election ostensibly because there were things that had to be taken care of right away, we would not be here two months later dealing with a bill that covers two completely different areas? Is it because the government is determined to pass two bills in one? If the government had brought the House back right away after the election, about two weeks after, for example, then we could have been debating two different bills. With regard to the Criminal Code, the bill is redundant because the offences already exist.

165 words

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Luc Thériault