- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Montcalm
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $126,025.95
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I will begin my speech this evening with two images. The first is that the cure is worse than the disease. The second is that we should not use a bazooka to kill a fly, but rather the appropriate tool, in other words, a fly swatter.
The government is being sneaky about it; that is the worst part. That is the story behind Bill C‑368. The government introduced this provision under the radar, in an annex to budget 2023, in Bill C‑47. From day one we have always made a distinction between natural health products and drugs, and rightly so. In the drug industry, in the pharmaceutical industry, people may have to bear the recovery costs, but they have 20-year patents. They are able to break even. What is more, there are no taxes on drugs.
The government makes a lot of money in taxes on natural health products so it can afford to pay for an inspection service that will guarantee the effectiveness and safety of natural health products. When we met in September, everyone agreed that consumers deserve to have effective products that are safe. Health Canada has to do its job in that respect.
What did the Auditor General's report reveal? First, in my opinion, there was a minor methodological problem. Rather than proceeding randomly, products, places and companies were targeted where problems were known to exist. Obviously, if problems are already known to exist, the audit will reveal a high percentage of problems.
There are approximately 91,000 natural health products. Of that number, 75 were analyzed in a targeted way, leading to the conclusion that Health Canada has not been doing its job to ensure product safety since 2014. That is what was found after checking the sampled products. Health Canada was caught with its pants down, so to speak. It played tough, tried to assert its credibility and brought out the big guns.
As legislators, we have always wanted to ensure that there is a balance when it comes to natural health products and access to those products, in order to guarantee free choice for consumers while also ensuring that when Health Canada approves products, it does its job after the fact and inspects those products. From 2004 to 2014, 53 recommendations were made. In September, when we heard from Health Canada representatives and the chief scientist, we realized that the answers were not credible.
I asked whether an impact study had been done on the industry, on small and medium-sized businesses, concerning the recovery costs required. I was told that it was based on Treasury Board guidelines. I imagine that the Treasury Board's main interest is getting its money's worth. What kind of service is it going to provide when, after all this time, and with all the taxes generated by the industry, it has not even been able to ensure an audit or any inspections throughout its mandate?
There are a few problems today. I asked the chief scientist how many adverse reactions there had been to natural health products in 17 years. I asked her to provide the numbers. We have yet to get an answer to that question. I also asked her what the numbers were for adverse reactions to pharmaceutical products. She replied that she had some numbers, but she still has not provided those either.
We know very well that, even though they are approved by Health Canada, pharmaceuticals can still sometimes have very serious side effects. However, that is no reason to discredit the entire industry. We are just doing our job and making sure that we do it properly. Contrary to what people might think and what the government tried to have us believe, the shell game that I am talking about, the one in Bill C‑47, happened in June, when we were voting on the March 2023 budget. Now we are getting letters and the public is starting to find out about this.
As legislators, we do not have any say over the regulations. We vote on laws. Regulations are then drafted on how the legislation should be applied. The problem is that we need Bill C‑368 to be sent to committee so that we can do our job as parliamentarians and look into the regulation that was brought in under which natural health products are now considered therapeutic products under Vanessa's Law.
It is very clear that we would not be where we are today if the government had been a little more transparent, if it had carried out the consultations it needed to and if it had worked with everyone to find some common ground to ensure that no harm would come to an industry that Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to have access to by choice. Natural health products are not forced on anyone through a prescription. No one is forced to buy them. When people choose to buy them, it is because, in a way, they have educated themselves.
It is true that they can pose risks, and it is also true that people have to follow their pharmacist's instructions. There are interactions, true. However, these interactions are between drugs prescribed by a doctor versus a pharmaceutical product that I am going to buy. We are not trying to trivialize anything, but just because there are a few bad apples in one industry does not mean that the entire industry should be discredited. That would undermine small and medium-sized businesses, which want to sell safe products. Their main motivation is people's health.
We would not be here if there had been a bit more transparency and if the people who came to testify in September had the courage to point this out to us. When they were told that their cost-recovery model was modelled on the pharmaceutical industry, they did not say one word, as if we would not figure out Bill C‑47's sleight of hand at some point. They took the entire model from the pharmaceutical industry and transposed it to the natural health products industry without allowing us to debate it. That is why there were two meetings on this. It was to get information about the problem.
There have been no more consultations so far. That is why we are going to vote in favour of Bill C‑368. We want to ensure that the legislator, who never has access to the regulations and can never review them through legislation, brings this to committee. There we will be able to work on it and find a balance regarding the government's claims that 88% of the 91,000 natural health products are deficient and have misleading labelling. This is a serious methodological bias that does not reflect reality, because in 2015, a randomized study showed that more than 90% of products were fully compliant. What happened in the meantime, then?
Maybe if the people at Health Canada did their job and carried out inspections, and maybe if they sent people their criteria, guidelines and information about where they want people to focus so that, during production, they can be certain that the product is okay, we would not be here today. The Bloc Québécois will indeed vote in favour of the bill.
1234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 7:35:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, does my colleague not find that Health Canada is using a bazooka to deal with a credibility problem it had, revealed by the Auditor General's report?
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 12:19:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is not much time left until the election. The Liberals are incapable of hearing Quebec's demands, among other things. Quebec will not prevent the federal government from doing what it wants everywhere else, but it is warning the federal government to be careful, because Quebec requires the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation. I think that, if the federal government denies this, it will not have time to do anything.
If the next government is Conservative, as today's polls suggest, I think that there will not be much for health care. If I understood the Conservative Party's health critic correctly earlier, the Conservatives will not interfere or tell us what to do, but we will not get a penny.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 11:43:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Conservative Party health critic, touched on an important point: access to care and wait times.
Would he tell us about the Conservative Party's plan to reduce wait times? After all, when we were talking about health transfer agreements, I did not hear his leader lobby very hard in favour of doing more than what was on the table, which the provinces know will not be enough to resolve the problem he raised earlier.
How does his party plan to really strengthen health care systems in the provinces and Quebec?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 4:29:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we often hear the argument that investments must be made in mental health to prevent mental illness and severe mental disorders.
I did not hear his leader say that he was going to put more on the table in terms of health transfers. Will the Conservatives propose a substantial increase in health transfers?
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 6:39:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding what my colleague is saying. He knows very well that structural vulnerabilities, such as poverty, have an impact on overall health.
Is he saying that we need to deal with that before we can allow people who are mentally ill to get relief from their irremediable suffering? That is what I am getting from his speech, when recommendations 5 and 6 of the panel's report indicate that, if there is any doubt whatsoever as to structural vulnerabilities, then medical assistance in dying will not be made available.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 1:05:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague's intention is not to exploit the pain of people who have been enduring irremediable suffering for decades. However, she is repeating an argument that we have heard often in this debate and that I feel is something completely separate.
The issue of access to primary mental health care has nothing to do with the decision we must make on whether to expand medical assistance in dying since, with regard to access to care, these people would not qualify under the criteria and guidelines of the expert report.
I do want us to advocate for better care. I wholeheartedly agree with that, but that is another debate. However, there are people who have been receiving care for decades and who are suffering, and the government wants to tell them to keep suffering for three years.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 1:16:11 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, these oil and gas projects will indeed exacerbate the climate crisis and also negatively impact peoples' health. The primary determinant of health and disease is the environment. That is quite obvious. They cannot see the forest for the trees.
When it comes to the environment, there should be no compromise. Then the government is surprised that it needs to sink huge sums into taking care of peoples' health, at least in Quebec. It is all related. How the government is choosing to invest its money does not suggest a real intention to move forward and improve the right to a healthy environment.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:03:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, perhaps the money had to be spent on health care, given this year's paltry health transfer.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Apr/27/23 4:03:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with respect to dental care, the program got off to a very poor start. The government rushed to get it up and running.
Quebec asked for the right to opt out with full compensation so that it could actually use that money to improve its own program. The Canada Revenue Agency showed that the project was off to a bad start, because there was no way to confirm whether the $650 given to people was being used appropriately.
When it comes to health care, we cannot afford to waste any money anywhere. That is my answer.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that before I dove into this subject, read the expert panel's report multiple times and asked endless questions, I was among the unconvinced.
Second, because we cannot cut corners on this issue, the entire community of professionals in mental health care, mental wellness and mental illness needs to be informed and trained. It will require an adequate number of service providers and assessors. It will require guidelines. Each of the regulatory bodies from coast to coast will need to establish standards of practice for their members, so as to ensure safe, effective and adequate implementation.
104 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/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
- 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 7:17:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I agree with the idea that we must take a holistic approach to mental health. In some cases, it is the chicken or the egg conundrum. Someone's mental health will deteriorate because of a physical problem and vice versa. We must therefore look at the person as a whole. I do think that both legislatures must take a complementary approach.
In order to give more help to people, to strengthen and reinforce the weak links in the health care systems from coast to coast to coast, including in Quebec, the federal government must give us the necessary financial resources and ensure that we have substantial, and above all recurring, health transfers. Even the Canadian Mental Health Association says that the problem is that the government makes one-time investments. It takes stability and predictability to rebuild the system and make action plans that will actually be effective in helping our people.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
