So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 323 - Jun/3/24

Jun/3/24 1:27:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has clearly demonstrated, Bill C‑64 is much more the expression of an election agreement than of a bill. Why? That would be because a bill of this scope would have required prior coordination, at least with the nation that put a system in place 30 years ago. Here in the House, the Quebec nation has been symbolically recognized on two occasions, but the moment that that has a legislative impact, it is out of the question. The National Assembly unanimously agreed that it wanted the right to opt out with full compensation to improve its plan. What is so hard to understand about that? My colleague clearly demonstrated that. The worst part is that, in addition to the first phase of the bill, the government intends to implement something with no accountability. Has anyone ever seen a Canadian prime minister lose their seat in an election because of health care? It has never happened. Why? Because health care has never been their jurisdiction. In Quebec, however, governments have fallen over health care. The government wants to meddle in the affairs of others, and with no political accountability, to boot. What does my colleague think about that?

205 words

Context: House Hansard - 323 - Jun/3/24

Jun/3/24 12:57:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Quebec realized a long time ago that it needed pharmacare. The Bloc Québécois is calling for Quebec to have the right to opt out with full compensation, so that it can improve its plan. That is also what the Quebec National Assembly called for unanimously, across party lines. I have a simple question for my Conservative colleague. What are the Conservatives proposing for pharmacare?

70 words

Context: House Hansard - 315 - May/22/24

Jun/3/24 12:24:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about the contributions needed from Quebec and the provinces. Would he not agree that, when it comes to pharmacare, Quebec is already making a significant contribution with its hybrid program, which does cover everyone? Even people with no income are covered by the public component. We do have a public component. First, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on whether it would be more cost-effective for the federal government to give us our share so that we can improve our own system based on the federal government's objectives, in order to avoid harmonization issues. Second, given that any duplication really bothers me, I would like to know what the Canadian drug agency is going to do that the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux, the Quebec institute for excellence in health and social services, is not already doing in Quebec.

158 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

May/22/24 2:19:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in February 2023 the joint committee recommended, by a strong majority, that individuals suffering from such diseases as Alzheimer's or dementia be allowed to make an advance request for medical assistance in dying. Although 83% of Canadians support advance requests, the health and justice ministers are unequalled in their complete lack of political courage and total failure to understand the file. They still expect afflicted patients to bear the burden of having to argue their case in court. Today, buoyed by the support of the Collège des médecins du Québec, the Barreau du Québec, the Chambre des notaires du Québec and a number of associations, we again call on the government to allow Quebec and any province so inclined to move forward with advance requests. To those who are suffering, like Ms. Demontigny, I would just like to say that we will never forget them and we will never abandon them.

164 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

May/9/24 12:34:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, decriminalization, British Columbia's pilot project, has nothing to do with overdoses, but it did make it possible to divert these people away from jail and the justice system. We need to be careful, though. Yes, this is true, but drug consumption can qualify for diversion too, because in co-operation with community projects, we can ensure that police intervene, that they be authorized to intervene, but that they refrain from arresting the individual. Perhaps this is what B.C. is returning to. The fact remains that we agree on one thing: These people must receive care, but above all, we need the resources to give them care, and we must stop feeling like we have done enough by simply diverting the individual, because we are leaving them in the street alone with their problems. We need to invest heavily in health care. The government has been miserly about investing in health care, and so have the Conservatives. Health transfers need to be increased, because the provinces and Quebec are the ones that are taking care of these people and that have to treat them, and they are crying poverty. We must not undermine all the good things that are being done to take care of these people with the inadequate means at hand. This needs to be heard in our debate.

224 words

Context: House Hansard - 310 - May/7/24

May/9/24 12:27:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did not mention the Quebec plan, which has four pillars: more prevention, more treatment with opioid antagonists, more and better harm reduction, and enforcement to dismantle clandestine laboratories. We want a ban on precursors, which are the substances needed to make counterfeit and deadly drugs. These labs add fentanyl and other substances to the drugs. People cannot even tolerate a single dose. We have to be able to dismantle and prohibit these labs. The federal government should invest in the health care systems in Quebec and the provinces so that they can take care of their own residents. It is also high time to legislate in the matter of precursors.

113 words

Context: House Hansard - 306 - May/1/24

May/7/24 12:49:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the bill includes a commitment to introduce dental care and pharmacare. The Quebec nation, speaking unanimously through its national assembly, told Ottawa it did not want this. What we want is the right to opt out with full compensation. We will enhance our own programs ourselves based on our own priorities. Can my colleague tell me how a member from Quebec could possibly ignore the unanimous voice of the Quebec nation, as expressed by its national assembly, and see what Ottawa is going to do as political progress?

90 words

Context: House Hansard - 306 - May/1/24

May/1/24 7:07:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will end the suspense by announcing right away that the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the bill. Still, I would like to emphasize our reservations regarding the creation of multiple national strategies. First, they often disregard the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Second, they sometimes seem to disregard, or at least fail to take into account, what is already being done in Quebec. The bill seeks to make the federal government the puppet master, when Quebec already has its own unique approach to treating traumatic injuries, which include brain injuries. We did not wait for a federal brain injury strategy before taking action. Let us look at what is in the bill. Let us examine the points one by one: (a) promote the implementation of preventive measures to reduce the risk of brain injuries; That is a good thing. Specifically as an employer, but also as a contributor to a number of organizations and events, the federal government must ensure that brain injuries are prevented as much as possible. (b) identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to brain injury prevention and treatment and the rehabilitation and recovery of persons living with a brain injury; Training health care professionals falls to the provinces, to professional associations. Furthermore, brain injuries are treated by hospitals, which are also under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, the federal government cannot identify anything, but it can certainly help identify needs and participate in the collective effort to address the concussion epidemic. In order to address brain injuries, Quebec has its own organizational model, known as the trauma care continuum. This model has four objectives: accessibility, efficiency, quality and continuity of care and services. The program was implemented in the early 1990s and continues to evolve by encouraging co-operation mechanisms, research and an assessment process implemented with trauma care continuum assessment functions. This involves collaboration between Quebec's ministry of health, the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux or INESSS, the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, and the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail or CNESST. Regarding brain injuries more specifically, Quebec also has an action plan for the prevention and management of concussions in sports and recreational activities, and it has had a concussion management protocol since 2019. The protocol includes a tracking sheet for recording information to be shared with participants, parents, and recreational, school or sports organizations, as well as health care system personnel. It outlines the steps to take based on a participant's condition after an incident, though it should not be used to diagnose a concussion and is not a substitute for a medical opinion. I also want to note that Quebec and its specialists, like all the provinces of Canada, train their workers and establish guidelines for their professionals in the treatment of brain injuries. For example, INESSS partnered with the Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation to publish the Canadian Clinical Practice Guideline for the Rehabilitation of Adults with Moderate to Severe TBI. The INESSS even has a tool called “Decision Algorithm for Serious Neurological Complication Risk Management Following MTBI, Adult Clientele” to assist professionals with their decision-making. (c) promote research and improve data collection on the incidence and treatment of brain injuries and on the rehabilitation and recovery of persons living with a brain injury; Promoting research is an essential role for the federal government. It is something the government is doing and should be doing. One example is Université de Montréal's research centre in the psychology department. This Canada research chair in paediatric traumatic brain injury does rather extraordinary work and she does indeed receive funding. The chair is trying to better understand traumatic brain injury in young children. (d) promote information and knowledge sharing with respect to brain injury prevention, diagnosis and treatment and the rehabilitation and recovery of persons living with a brain injury; The promotion of information and knowledge here and abroad is a mission the federal government is asked to do and is participating in. For example, it is working with the Parachute organization on the publication of the Canadian guideline on concussion in sport. (e) create national guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis and management of brain injuries in all communities, including recommended standards of care that reflect best methodological, medical and psychosocial practices; As previously mentioned, Quebec already does this with its own model. As long as the federal government is trying to collaborate and not establish or impose, then we support the initiative. (f) promote awareness and education with particular emphasis on improving public understanding and protecting the rights of persons living with a brain injury; For an awareness campaign to be effective, it must be adapted to its context. Given that the Quebec government provides the services and resources, it is in the best position to run those campaigns. In fact, it is already doing just that. There are many websites and brochures available to the public that are designed to prevent or recognize the symptoms of brain injuries. (g) foster collaboration with and provide financial support to national, provincial and local brain injury associations and brain injury service providers to develop and provide enhanced and integrated mental health resources for persons living with a brain injury and for their families; If the federal government wants to use tax tools to help families facing additional costs or loss of income because of a brain injury, the Bloc Québécois invites Ottawa to do so. I would add that the EI reform promised by the Liberals has yet to happen. (h) encourage consultation with mental health professionals, particularly in educational institutions, sports organizations and workplaces, to provide persons who are suffering from the effects of a brain injury, including mental health and addiction problems, with a support system within the community; Encouraging consultation is all well and good, but where mental health is concerned, access is the problem. Quebec lacks the resources needed to train more psychologists and social workers. It also needs resources to provide better working conditions for its professionals to retain them in the public system and in community organizations. If the federal government wants to financially support our health care systems, it will come as no surprise to anyone that increasing health transfers is the way to go about it. The Bloc Québécois supports that. The Bloc Québécois would remind members that one of the major problems with Canada's health care systems is federal government under-investment. The federal government needs to increase transfers to 35%. (i) identify challenges resulting from brain injury, such as mental health problems, addiction, housing and homelessness issues and criminality, including intimate partner violence, and work to develop solutions in collaboration with stakeholders; Health, including mental health, falls under provincial jurisdiction. The same goes for addiction, housing and homelessness. If the federal government wants to fund research on those topics, then we invite it to do so. When it comes to criminality and violence, that is an area in which the federal government can and should take action. (j) maintain, in collaboration with Brain Injury Canada, a national information website providing current facts, research and best practices related to the diagnosis and management of brain injuries, as well as other relevant resources; When I read that, I found it a bit strange that a bill would explicitly give an organization the responsibility to maintain a website on brain injuries. In any case, we believe that Quebec and the provinces are in the best position to inform people of the resources that are available and of the action they should take if they experience a brain injury. (k) establish a task force to include policy makers, stakeholders, community agencies, brain injury associations and Indigenous groups, as well as persons who have experienced a brain injury and their families, to make recommendations in relation to the national strategy. We agree on that, and as I said earlier, we look forward to taking this to committee so we can make some adjustments. Then we can vote in favour of the bill.

1397 words

May/1/24 6:48:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, is my colleague open to amending his strategy in order to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces? Many of the national strategies that are being introduced in the House often overlook that vital requirement. Is he prepared to consider that?

44 words

Apr/16/24 1:59:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in responding to the member from Quebec's question, the member just proved that he knows absolutely nothing about Quebec's pharmacare program. Everyone gets the same coverage and has access to the same molecules. The example he gave makes it absolutely clear that this government does not know what it is talking about when it talks about pharmacare. They are sorcerers' apprentices.

65 words

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

Apr/16/24 12:18:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, no one will be surprised to hear me say that, by continually oppressing us, by not recognizing that we are a national government, by making sure that any recognition is merely symbolic and has no legislative impact at all, the federal government is making sure that, one day, Quebeckers will decide to take control of their own affairs and make Quebec its own country.

66 words

Apr/16/24 12:16:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that the NDP member appears to know more about Quebec society than her leader, who said that, if things are not going well with health care in Quebec, it is because we are not investing enough. Since 2018, Quebec's health care budget has actually increased from $40 billion to $59 billion. We are investing in health care. The problem is that the federal government is not doing enough. If other provinces want to adopt a pharmacare plan, they are free to do so, but I would like to hear the NDP and the member explicitly say that Quebec should have the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation.

119 words

Apr/16/24 12:14:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we will look at the budget. Just yesterday, given Ottawa’s encroachments into areas of Quebec jurisdiction, the Bloc Québécois House leader said that we could not vote for this budget. We will indeed vote against the budget. However, I will let our critics take a position on this. That is not my job, as I am the health critic. I will not presume to take anyone else's job. In principle, the Bloc Québécois should vote against this budget because it does not respect the Quebec national state or the Quebec nation.

104 words

Apr/16/24 11:51:13 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Madam Speaker, after what I have heard, I would like to begin my speech by commenting briefly on the answer given by the Conservative health critic, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Health. In his answer, he spoke strictly about the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces and made no mention of what kind of additional funding the Conservatives would provide for health transfers. If I understood him correctly, basically, the only real option Quebeckers have is the Bloc Québécois. On one hand, we have the Liberal Party, which says that it will give the provinces money but only on its own terms and while infringing on their jurisdictions. The Liberals are duplicating programs and efforts. On the other hand, we have the Conservative Party, which says that it will not bother the provinces and will respect their jurisdictions but it will not give them a single cent more. That is the choice facing Canadian voters, except in Quebec, where they can vote for the Bloc Québécois. I will begin my speech with a brief comment, and I hope that the Minister of Health will listen carefully to what I am saying. He always talks about the great discussions that he has with the Quebec health minister. I will come back to that a little later. I want to begin by saying that in June 2019, the Quebec national state, through its National Assembly, with a single voice and across party lines, responded to this desire to implement coast-to-coast pharmacare. The National Assembly and the national state of the people of Quebec have not changed their position on this issue. The motion that was adopted the day after the Hoskins report reads as follows: THAT it reaffirm the Government of Québec's exclusive jurisdiction over health; THAT it also reaffirm that Québec has had its own general prescription insurance plan for 20 years; I should point out that it has now been nearly 28 years. THAT it indicate to the federal government that Québec refuses to adhere to a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan; THAT it ask the Government of Québec to maintain its prescription drug insurance plan and that it demand full financial compensation from the federal government if a project for a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan is officially tabled. That is what is going on right now. This motion was moved in June 2019. The House passed a motion twice on recognizing Quebec as a nation. When we respect a nation as a national state, by allegedly giving it more than mere token recognition, then the least we can do is avoid the kind of heavy-handed approach taken by the current federal Liberal minister of health. We have to sit down respectfully with the people who administer a plan, which is not perfect. In fact, I imagine that if the federal government was being stingy with the health transfers, it was because it wanted to funnel some of the money into pharmacare and dental insurance. We will talk about that later. In this case, the government should have come and sat down to see who has the expertise, learn how the Quebec system operates and arrange to provide the full compensation that Quebec is calling for, with no strings attached. In that regard, we need to stop all the speculation around what Quebec wants to do with the money. Quebec’s health minister was very clear when he said, “we have no problem adding this money to the drug insurance program. But it has to be without conditions. It is not up to them to decide what the best drug coverage is for Quebeckers”. His intention seems pretty clear. There is respect for Quebec symbolically. They call Quebec a nation to avoid looking foolish. When it comes down to it, though, this must not have any legislative consequences, period. The debate could end here if full compensation were offered. The bill provides for a list to be prepared. Earlier I asked the minister if he knew the list of drugs covered in Quebec, but he did not wish to answer my question. Do members know how many drugs are covered by Quebec’s drug insurance plan? The answer is 8,000. I wanted to bring this 792-page list, but I found it a bit heavy. These sorcerers' apprentices would have us believe they will arrange all this in no time at all. They will create the Canadian drug agency while in Quebec, there is already infrastructure. Ottawa has so much money that they are going to create another structure. There will be a duplication of structures. Is the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux, or INESSS, not doing its job properly? It has been 28 years since Quebec has been making decisions, analyzing all the elements at a molecular level and determining whether these elements, many of which are innovative, are to be reimbursed. They are included in the list. Whether we are talking about the public part or the private part of this mixed plan, everyone has access to the same drugs. This would have been a great opportunity to respect the Quebec nation. The Quebec national state and all its parties are asking for the same thing. The leader of the NDP, that progressive party, is lecturing us. He is completely out to lunch, though, when he says that the health problem in Quebec has to do with the fact that the government has not invested enough in health care. The Government of Quebec increased its budget by 50%. It has enacted reforms to try to do more with less. It implemented a number of reforms and a lot of structural modifications in an effort to achieve greater health efficiencies. We have a partner that has not been putting enough money on the table. Then, a few years later, this same partner has the nerve to say that Quebec does not know how to manage its own health care system and tries to explain how it should be done. The first thing that partner should do is hand over the money. That would be a good starting point. Quebec's current resistance to all this federal interference should not be that hard to grasp. It is easy for the Prime Minister to say that he does not care about jurisdictions. The Prime Minister does not care about the Constitution. Well, let him reopen the Constitution, then. We will see if he really does not care. The government likes to lecture everyone else, but cannot even take care of its own people. That is the federal government. I will come back to that. One might think this bill was well-intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the devil is in the details. I asked only one question: How many prescription drugs will be covered by the national public pharmacare program with a single universal payer? Will Quebec's list be used? Will Quebec have to take any prescription drugs off its list? Will INESSS be made redundant, or will it be able to continue doing its good work? Why is a Canadian agency being created to supersede the process we have in Quebec? We are not getting any answers to these questions. However, the minister claims he has maintained a very good dialogue with Quebec. I gave an example. I think the minister is having a dialogue of the deaf, where he listens only to himself and not the other party. It seems to me that it was quite clear when Quebec's health minister, Christian Dubé, said, “we have no problem adding this money to the drug insurance program. But it has to be without conditions”. He then added the following: The government is not only refusing to give us the money we asked for in health transfers, but it also wants to interfere in an area under Quebec's jurisdiction. The federal government knows full well that this is a provincial jurisdiction. We have had our own pharmacare program since 1997. That is almost 30 years. We also cover the widest range of prescription drugs of all the Canadian provinces. The federal health minister just told us that he has very good conversations with him, even though the Premier of Quebec felt it necessary to hold a press conference to tell the federal Liberal government—which is in a coalition with the NDP and was not so centralist before the NDP got involved—to mind its own business. The minister just told us this morning that they have very good conversations, but when we stand up in question period, we are told that we are trying to pick a fight. All we are saying is that the federal government should mind its own business. We are only relaying the message from the National Assembly of Quebec, not from a single party but from all parties, on pharmacare. The reason Ottawa has money in the first place is because of the fiscal imbalance. Well, we are going to enhance our own program. I challenge anyone here this morning to prove they could do a more competent job managing our program than those who are doing it right now in Quebec City. I challenge anyone willing to make that claim to go make their case to those managing the program and prove that they have the competence. I am talking not only about provincial competence in the jurisdictional sense, but also about incompetence. In that respect, I have a short list I will return to later. Bill C-64 has put the cart before the horse, as the saying goes. Today, rather than sitting down, holding a summit, talking to people, looking at what was being done and coming up with something of substance, the government announced an intention of putting something in place. However, it did not talk to anyone, it is not open to anything without conditions, and it is saying that Quebec must march to the beat of Ottawa's drum. This is not well intentioned; this is a political deal to stay in power until October 2025. That is what this bill is really about. That is what is behind it, because no one could be this keen to jump into as sensitive and critical a field as pharmacare. Drugs in 2024 are not like they used to be in 1996 or 1997. We are not talking about codeine or Tylenol. We are talking about innovative molecules that often give rise to treatments that could potentially allow patients to avoid surgeries and transplants. A case in point is Trikafta for cystic fibrosis. Patients can take two pills and a glass of water a day, instead of being hospitalized for 280 or 320 days a year, instead of having to get a lung transplant. This drug needs to be covered. How will the list be compiled, and how can we trust the federal government, which starts things but then walks away? After all, this is the government that pilfered from the EI fund and from workers and that never did the right thing by returning the money. This is the government that dumped the federal deficit on the provinces and cut health transfers in the mid-1990s. Jean Chrétien travelled the world, boasting to the G7 countries that all he had to do to balance his budget was cut health transfers and that the best part was that people were protesting in front of the Quebec National Assembly, not in front of the Parliament of Canada. That is what the federal government is like. It is creating a program now, but how many years will it be before the government disengages because it got the math wrong, it is unable to manage the program properly, and the infrastructure is cumbersome and redundant, when the money should be on the ground, going directly to patients as quickly as possible? The minister delivered a very nice speech, saying the governments get along really well, the principles are sound, the Quebec government wants to co-operate. In reality, the Quebec government's response was to ask Ottawa to mind its own business. The federal government is not even capable of handling its own affairs properly. Think about the whole F-35 saga or the lack of investment in defence. Think about Phoenix, the borders, passports, asylum seekers. The national emergency stockpile was empty when the pandemic hit. The Global Public Health Intelligence Network had been dismantled and was ineffective at the start of the pandemic. The federal government should mind its own business and clean up its own house before lecturing us. It lectures the provinces about health care management, but it is the worst employer for federal health employees. Communities under the federal government's jurisdiction are neglected. The funding Ottawa provides for public health care is insufficient, to be sure, but the federal government treats its employees worse than the provinces do. How it can then lecture anyone, I just do not know. The bill seeks to put in place principles, and then, based on these principles, a list will be compiled. After this list is compiled, an agency and then a committee will be established. The government is so clueless about where it wants to go with this that it is tabling a bill to create a committee that will make recommendations for rolling out pharmacare. Bravo. The Bloc Québécois is not opposed to state pharmacare. It already exists in Quebec. It is far from perfect, there are positives and negatives, but it does guarantee minimum coverage. What we are calling for is what the National Assembly has always demanded: the right to opt out with full compensation. Given how long Quebec has been administering pharmacare, if there was a real need elsewhere, I imagine others would have followed suit. However, that was not the case. We are going to ensure that no one is ever allowed to dismantle our system or reduce our coverage. Medication is currently free for people aged 18 and under. The system is not perfect, of course, and there are certain fees involved. However, if we had the money, we could increase free coverage without compromising on the list of drugs we cover. Does the federal government really know how much it is going to cost to make everything free from the first dollar invested? I am not sure these sorcerers' apprentices really know what they are doing. Based on the reaction of the National Assembly and the Quebec government, I am certain the federal government has never sat down with them to have a serious conversation about it. Quebec's example and expertise are not going to be on the agenda as the government implements its system.

2507 words

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

Context: House Hansard - 295 - Apr/8/24

Apr/16/24 11:11:54 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about a lot of things. I feel he spoke very little about Bill C-64. However, when we talk to him about Quebec’s interests, he rises in the House and always says that the Bloc Québécois is looking for a fight. Quebec has been administering a mixed drug insurance plan for the past 28 years, but the minister never sat down with Quebec before making his announcement to see how Quebec manages this and how much it might cost. Does the minister know how many prescription drugs are covered by Quebec’s drug insurance? Has he sat down with the health minister, who says that Quebec does have constitutional rights? When the minister says we are looking for a fight, he should add the word “constitutional”. It is as though we Bloc members have more respect for Canada’s Constitution than he does, despite his party having done all it could to prevent Quebec from signing the Constitution in 1982. Is he aware that the minister wants nothing to do with his pharmacare plan as proposed?

191 words

Context: House Hansard - 293 - Mar/21/24

Apr/8/24 2:04:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, last week we were sad to learn of the passing of the former Liberal member of the National Assembly of Quebec for Chapleau, Benoît Pelletier, a gentleman who was beloved by all. Having had the opportunity to sit with him at the National Assembly of Quebec, I can confirm that. More importantly, no matter how intense his political jousting might have been, Benoît Pelletier never crossed the line of intellectual integrity. That is why he has our utmost respect. He was one of the most prominent constitutional law experts of his generation. Within the Liberal family he embodied nothing less than the national consciousness of Quebec. He was a true federalist who believed both in the importance of Ottawa respecting Quebec's jurisdictions and in the pride of Quebeckers. Today we are losing one of the last Quebeckers who vigorously defended that perspective, intelligently and in good faith. Our thoughts are with his family and his loved ones, who will miss him very much. Thank you, Benoît Pelletier.

176 words