- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
- May/29/23 7:41:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, this is the first government budget that we could describe as a postpandemic budget. Obviously no one here in Parliament is to blame for the virus. However, the programs that might have helped us to get through the pandemic at the time are the responsibility of this Parliament. We need to learn important lessons and make corrections. We also need to prepare for the next crisis that could arise.
The government boasts about having signed agreements with the provinces on health. These agreements were imposed. Out of the demands that were made by the provinces and Quebec, only $1 out of $6 was granted. Before the Liberals came along, the transfers covered 24% of provincial health costs. Now they cover just 22%. With these new agreements, which are not real agreements, we are back to 24%. They are perpetuating the chronic underfunding of health.
Does the minister recognize that the federal government's chronic underfunding has left us short on hospital beds and that the measures to counter the pandemic, which hurt our economy, had to be excessively extended?
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:18:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on February 14, I wished the NDP and the Liberals a Happy Valentine's Day. Today, to look at the budget document we have before us, I think that the union has been consummated. It is clear.
What we learn from reading the budget document, which was summed up well by my colleague from Joliette, is that the federal government has a tremendous amount of means and that, with the help of the NDP, which is not surprising, it is having a hard time spending and investing those means wisely in the priorities of people on the ground who are dealing with real problems when it comes to employment insurance, seniors' return to work, or health. There is absolute disparity between the government's financial capacity and the real needs on the ground. It is not for nothing that when the Liberals toss $4 billion to provinces that are asking for $28 billion and tell them to accept it or get nothing, they have the nerve to stand up and say that it is an agreement. They have the nerve to do that. I know that they are not lying. They believe themselves and that is even worse.
The budget document is clear. It seems to be very much like what the Parliamentary Budget Officer described, and my colleague put it well. It states that, in 25 years, if we include the new financial commitments, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio will be zero even in the worse case scenario. There is no other industrialized country that plans to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio to zero, which means that there will be no debt, without looking after its people. No other developed country is doing that.
There is fiscal flexibility in the budget. The Parliamentary Budget Office has done the calculations. Those people are paid to provide Parliament with information. They are competent. They are quite right in saying that as the government eliminates its debt over time, the provinces will find themselves in more and more trouble, and that when the federal debt is eliminated, the provinces will be technically bankrupt.
The federal government tells us that there is no fiscal imbalance because this year, the current year, some provincial governments are running small surpluses while the federal government has a $40-billion deficit. All of this is without recognizing that the problems we are experiencing in health care today are the same problems that could not be solved 25 years ago when the Liberals began cutting the transfers. By repeating the same thing today, they will create even more serious problems 25 years from now. In their minds, there is nothing dynamic. They are always thinking six months ahead, to the next election, and it is exactly the same with the NDP.
There is $40 billion in lapsed spending from last year. We have the figures and the public accounts. That is $40 billion that was not used. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that another $40 billion could be used to help the provinces with health care and other things. Even so, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio would remain the same and the provinces would be able to take care of people. We are talking about $80 billion.
We can add to that the fact that inflation is estimated to be 3.5% this year. That number is way off, which means that there will be additional tax revenue. That puts us at more than $80 billion, which is far more than the $28 billion the provinces were asking for. They would have $50 billion or $60 billion left over while allowing us to take care of our people. This is no joke. They could keep lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio while taking care of people.
Allow me to summarize. The Liberals had an opportunity to relieve the suffering of Quebec's patients. Instead, they decided to relieve the electoral anxieties of the NDP. That is essentially what they did. I can understand why the NDP is crowing about it. If I were them, I would be happy too. That is the reality.
What will the NDP tell us? The NDP is going to tell us that they got us dental care. The budget says that Health Canada is basically going to turn into an insurance company. If you have tried to get a passport, Mr. Speaker, you have every reason to be concerned. By the end of the year, it looks as though Health Canada will become an insurance company. They are going to call all the dental associations in all the provinces and they are going to negotiate agreements. Then we will be able to start submitting dental bills, all by the end of the year.
That is the promise that they are going to make to us, but they need a reality check. The federal government is so bad. The Liberals have no idea how to do anything. They are so far removed from what they are good at—and one has to admit that there is not much that they are good at—that the dental care program is not even included in the budget implementation bill.
They are going to implement the budget without even knowing how to do so. The dental care program is not even there. That will bring us to the summer. We will come back in the fall and there will not even be a dental care program because they just have no idea how to implement one.
There has been no talk of seniors because the Liberals created two classes of seniors, those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and up. There is nothing in the budget for seniors aged 65 to 74. They are taking the injustice they created and indexing it to inflation, and yet this government is supposed to have an aversion to injustice.
When it comes to inflation, the NDP has spent all year getting worked up into a lather over grocery store owners. The Liberals decided to make the NDP happy. They are going to take the GST rebate cheque that they doubled, as the Bloc Québécois has been asking them to do for a year and a half, they are going to issue it early in the year—we asked them to increase the frequency of the cheques—and they are going to call it a grocery rebate. It is a great victory for the NDP. We congratulate them.
On employment insurance, this system that insures one in two people and leaves half the people behind when they lose their job, they are saying that there will be a recession, but no EI reform.
If I were looking to insure my house and the insurer told me that I had a 50% chance of my claim being rejected if my house burned down, I would switch insurers. That is exactly the situation that the unemployed are facing. The Liberals say that, according to actuarial forecasts, the EI fund is good for another 10 years before it needs to be reformed. There is nothing in the budget about getting experienced workers back to work without penalizing them for offering their strength, intelligence and experience to our businesses. When I walk around Mirabel and other places in Quebec, everyone talks to me about it. Everyone is talking about it except for the Liberals and the NDP.
There is nothing for the aerospace industry. The minister was telling me that he is talking to CEOs and inviting them to invest. The minister is not a lobbyist. His job is not to be a chargé d'affaires but to ensure that the investment climate is favourable to investment, in order to have investment, research and development, investment funds, credits for research and development, and to fix the implementation of this luxury tax, which is about to kill 2,000 jobs in Quebec. People will go elsewhere to buy planes.
We are the laughingstock of the G7. The Liberals tell us that aviation is important, but they are closing the control tower in Mirabel. They have shut down light aircraft access, our flight schools and a runway. The industry's strategic infrastructure is now managed by a board of directors that takes care of Montreal and whose CEO is a former accountant from Coca-Cola. Nobody is accountable and nobody knows anything about aviation. They appear to be really good at this. When they do not know something, it is scary.
With regard to energy, the budget gives $18 billion in subsidies to oil companies, which have money. When it comes to taxing luxury jets that are used to transport passengers and that harm our industry, there is no problem. They are for equality. However, when it comes to giving subsidies to companies that are making tons of profit, that could invest in reducing their emissions if they wanted to avoid the carbon tax, but instead the government gives them subsidies so that these CEOs can buy private jets to go to their cottages, that is not a problem for western Canada.
Now there is an election coming up in Ontario. Their 15% and 30% clean energy subsidies—because when we get right down to the nitty gritty, CO2 is all that matters to them—are going to go to Ontario's nuclear plants. Oddly enough, there is an election coming up in Ontario. Oddly enough, the majority of the next Canadian government is going to be in Ontario.
We are willing to collaborate and we are willing to vote in favour of measures that are good for Quebec. That is what we do, but our goodwill is like an elastic. There is a limit.
Since my time is almost up, I will move the following amendment to the amendment:
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words “since it” and substituting the following:
fails to:
(a) immediately reform employment insurance and increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74;
(b) fight climate change by ending fossil fuel subsidies; and
(c) increase health transfers to 35%, preferring instead to interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, such as by creating dental insurance without giving Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation.
1749 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 4:53:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep saying that health care is important to them and that the provinces and Quebec accepted the deal. The reality is that they were forced to accept one-seventh of what they were asking for. If I offered the member a choice between one-seventh of his income or nothing, and held a knife to his throat, he would likely take one-seventh of his income because he would have no choice.
Under a minority government, there is a way to make health care really matter. We know that the provinces need funding. The way to make health care matter is to tell the Liberals that we will vote against their budget if it does not allocate an acceptable amount of funding for health.
Since the NDP is taking a full opposition day today to talk about health care, can it commit to voting against the Liberal budget if the provinces' health care demands are not met?
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 3:40:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about funding for health care.
We all know that the provinces were calling for $28 billion per year, but the government only put $4.4 billion per year on the table. Therefore, the government is giving the provinces only $1 for every $7 they asked for.
I have two questions for my colleague. Does she think that $1 out of every $7 the provinces were calling for is enough? I would like her to explain why she thinks that the provinces' initial requests were unreasonable.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 5:01:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will take a few seconds to remind or inform my colleagues that this is the first St. Valentine's Day that the NDP and the Liberals have spent together since they struck their alliance. I wish them a happy Valentine's Day.
We, in the Bloc Québécois, are sovereignists, and we want Quebec to be its own country. We would like Quebec to make its own decisions and choices. There are many reasons for that, historical and institutional reasons, but we also want to be efficient.
In Quebec, we are against duplication. We believe that doing the same work twice, once in Quebec City and once in Ottawa, is not a good thing. It is not a good use of resources. I can see my Conservative colleagues nodding. That is a good thing because today we are faced with the duplication of previous motions.
This is the fifth or sixth identical motion. This unnecessary duplication, this waste of energy, is something we have seen before in the House of Commons. It is the same thing every Conservative opposition day. Economists call this looking for economies of scale. An economy of scale means trying to always produce the same thing with less and less effort. Lucky for us, it takes less and less effort to give them the same answers. Obviously they get paid big money just to copy and paste, in other words, to hit “control c” and “control v”. We already voted against a virtually identical motion last week. I would say that I am throwing their motion in the garbage bin, but even the garbage bin might vote against that.
We will talk about the motion for a few minutes. The diagnosis within the motion is not entirely false. It is true that there is inflation. It is true that Canadian families are facing a crisis. It is true that times are hard because many people are struggling. We have to think about those people. It is true that the inflation rate is at its highest since 1982. It was over 10% in 1982. It is roughly 6% today. The motion is a little overblown, but there we are.
However, what the Conservatives forgot to say is that if we do not consider energy and food, which are important components, the core inflation rate used by the Bank of Canada is 5.5%. The price of fossil fuel energy has increased by 28%.
Once again, the Conservatives think that attacking the carbon tax, which does not even apply in Quebec, is the solution to all our woes. Instead, we need to take measures to start an energy transition, so that the next time there is a crisis, we do not end up with a 22nd, 23rd and 24th identical motion. Surely it is clear why we are uncomfortable.
The reason the Conservatives can afford to keep tabling the same motion over and over is because the Liberals did little to help families during the crisis. True, there were some measures. They increased the Canada child benefit and so on. However, those measures were planned before the crisis. Very little was done. They did double the GST credit, something the Bloc had been asking for for months. We also asked that cheques be sent out more frequently, but that has not been done.
The Liberals are complacent. They spend too much time talking and not enough time helping people. That is why the Conservatives' populism, as expressed in yet another of these motions, is unfortunately beginning to gain credence among groups of people who are not always well informed.
One good thing about the Conservatives' motion is that at least we get an opportunity to talk about the federal government's efficiency in delivering services. We get to talk about the efficiency of the machinery of government and McKinsey. We will discuss that later.
I just want to say that inefficiency, especially in the form of duplication, is rampant in Ottawa. I would like the government to explain to me why it costs two and a half times more to process an EI claim than it does to process a social assistance application in Quebec, and that is the truth. That is a 250% markup on processing.
Why does it cost four times more to handle and process a passport application in the federal bureaucracy than it does for the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec to deliver a driver's licence? Of course, a driver's licence is not a passport, but that is 400% more. These are not unreasonable comparisons. This is a major problem.
Members talked about duplication, and I want to talk about federal government costs that have doubled or even tripled.
We know that Ottawa duplicates some things that Quebec already does. That management could be decentralized. There will be further discussion on the single income tax statement and the duplication of taxation centres. That is one thing.
Yesterday, the procurement ombudsman appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Based on what we heard, ministers can indeed subcontract work, even if the public service is available and has the skills needed to do the work. The work can be subcontracted to companies such as McKinsey.
I asked him if, during his audits, he identified whether work that public servants could have done had been subcontracted. Quebeckers and Canadians will not pay just once or twice, but three times. He responded that his work was rather to ensure that, when taxpayers get ripped off and pay twice, pre-established rules are followed. In other words, we will be ripped off in accordance with the rules. That is exactly how it works. I invite people to listen to the ombudsman's testimony yesterday.
There are ways to ensure that the machinery of government operates more efficiently. Are these solutions contained in the Conservative motion? I read it three times. It was quite painful but I did it, and I noted that it does not contain any solutions, so we will be voting against this motion.
There is another thing that is niggling at me. It bothers me, and I feel uncomfortable. The Conservatives and the Liberals both know that not all inflation is created equal. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom the Conservatives love to quote every 15 minutes, said and showed that the trajectory of the federal government's debt-to-GDP ratio would drop over the coming years. It could actually reach 10% of GDP, maybe even 0% of GDP, depending on the budget, in a few decades.
The federal government's long-term public finances are healthy, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer showed that the provinces' finances, which cover health, are going to be in bigger and bigger trouble. They are in trouble because the cost of the system, even before the inflationary crisis, was increasing at a rate of 5.5% to 6% per year. That is before any increase in the cost of nurses, orderlies and all the other inputs involved in health care systems.
Now there is a new agreement being imposed. I do not know of many marriages that are entered into legally and with mutual consent with this type of agreement. It is an agreement imposed by one side only. It is so stingy that the Conservatives have decided to support it. When inflation affects the sick people who are waiting in hospital corridors, people whose cancer diagnosis or treatment is pushed back a month, two months or three months, or families who will lose loved ones, inflation is the least of their concerns. All they want is to adopt austerity policies.
What will the Conservatives cut? Will they cut help for seniors, like the Liberals did for seniors aged 65 to 74? They will make cuts to the energy transition, obviously. As far as employment insurance is concerned, they are not proposing anything for people who have to deal with the spring gap. They are even proposing that pensions be reduced because they want to offer premium holidays. The Conservatives are going to force future retirees into poverty, and when they turn to Ottawa for help in 20 or 30 years' time, they will be told that the government needs to make cuts and will not help them. With the Conservatives, it is two layers of trouble, not one.
Workable solutions exist. The Bloc Québécois has put forward proposals. We have been doing so for a year and a half. We proposed GST and QST cheques. In cases such as the McKinsey affair, we are always there to ensure that we do not pay double or triple and that taxpayers get their money's worth. When it is time to defend the competence of our public service, the Bloc Québécois is always there.
When it is the Bloc opposition day, we are always accused of raising useless subjects. We are told that people are not interested in what we want to discuss.
In conclusion, I will explain why we are capable of talking about other things. It is because we do not move the same motion seven times. We understand things right away, and it gives us the time to think about other things. The Conservatives want to be in government. The people sitting in this place want to be ministers, but they are not even able to walk and chew gum at the same time. What will they do? Will there be 2,000 seats in the House and 22 parliamentary secretaries for each minister so they can think about two things at once? No, thank you.
For their next opposition day, I invite them to think about their motion, to speak to the other opposition parties and to ensure that the door is not slammed in their face for the eighth or ninth time. That way, they will stop crying and blaming the other parties.
1678 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for an excellent and very interesting speech.
The new trend among Conservatives is to say that for every new expenditure, an old expenditure must be eliminated so that the balance remains at zero. They are obviously forgetting about inflation and economic growth. That is forgivable, however, since we know that economics is not the Conservatives' strong suit.
Having said that, I would like to ask the member how much more money would be available for health transfers if we abolished all oil subsidies.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague did an astute job of outlining the problems affecting the people in her riding.
In addition to all the problems she referred to, there is the fact that some of my constituents are sick and in hospital. We know that Quebec and the provinces are unanimous in calling for health transfers to be increased immediately and unconditionally to cover 35% of system costs. Since the arrival of the new Conservative leader and the bump their party has gotten in the polls, it seems like the Conservatives' support for boosting health transfers to 35% has eroded.
Can my colleague confirm today that the Conservatives support the call of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today, but for me to be truly enthusiastic, I would have had to see something new in the economic update. There really was not much there. As my colleague from La Prairie said earlier, it merely dusts off and updates some old legislation. It is an implementation act and a very long document, but there is not much in terms of real content.
There is one new aspect, though. Once again, as my colleague mentioned earlier, we are doing something we did not do last March when the budget was presented. We are talking about inflation more than anything else. The word “inflation” appears in the document roughly 110 times and is referred to ad nauseam. There is also the prospect of a recession now and, for the first time, the document includes an official forecast of a slowdown for two consecutive quarters. This is an extremely important observation. We are talking about inflation and we are anticipating a recession.
As my colleague from La Prairie said, the situation is such that we are being told that inflation is very serious, and the Prime Minister is doing what he likes to do when he goes on a trip to India: He dresses up as a sorcerer, a magician or whatever, and thinks that repeating it 10, 20, 50, 100 or 120 times will make the problem disappear. However, the people struggling with inflation every day in their homes do realize that 80% of all the money announced and spent in this budget update had already been announced either in Bill C-30 or Bill C-31, or still in the last budget or one-off announcements. That is why there is almost nothing in there.
Part of what is new is that it provides for workers to access certain benefits, to which they are already entitled, a bit sooner. People in Saint-Colomban, Saint-Joseph-du-Lac or Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines who are facing inflation and are afraid of losing their jobs will look at this and surely see that it is largely a rehash.
What should have been proposed? The last election campaign was my first. One of the highlights of the campaign was when the Liberal Party went to the public for ideas. The Liberals called the election even though they did not know what to do. They did not even have a platform. They went door to door and had nothing to say. One suggestion in their suggestion box could have been to fulfill the promise they made seven years ago, which was to make major reforms to the employment insurance system.
Workers are sometimes overcome by life's misfortunes. They may have to go through a recession and face COVID-19 while paying for groceries that now cost 10% more. Currently, not even one in two workers qualifies for EI even though they have paid into the system every paycheque, and their employer has paid into the system every paycheque. The government must reform the system. However, we know that a Liberal promise is basically only good for being torn up and thrown away, much like the motions we vote on in the House.
This government does not know how to listen. Even when it takes a step forward, it fails to implement its very own measures. The Bloc Québécois asked for 50 weeks of benefits for people with serious illnesses, such as cancer, who need treatment for long periods of time. If people are undergoing chemo and not applying for jobs, I think it is fair to say they are not trying to rob the system. The Liberals thought 26 weeks of benefits was fair. That measure was voted on in the House and is ready to roll out, but to this day, workers are not getting even one extra week because cabinet has not passed the order in council. It has been 18 months and still no order in council. That is the very definition of a lack of political will, a lack of empathy for people, a lack of respect for Parliament, a lack of consideration for members of the public, for Quebeckers, for Canadians, for workers and for sick people. The Liberals' appalling failure to take action on employment insurance is a manifestation of all those things.
I had hoped there would be something in the statement about climate change, at least. The energy transition is an opportunity to transform our economy, an opportunity to invest, innovate and export. We have to unlock that potential.
The Prime Minister could not even be bothered to go to COP27. He is known for his judgment, so he surely had something less important to do. He did not go to COP27. We said to ourselves that at least the Minister of Environment, who is a reasonable guy, would go to COP27. Since the Prime Minister was not going with him, the minister was lonely and said he would invite some friends. He called the Royal Bank of Canada, one of the largest financial backers of oil projects, western Canadians and oil people. It seems that there was partying going on in Egypt at the Canada pavilion. Oil spill shots were served, people were standing on tables at midnight or 1 a.m. and they sang O Canada after 3 a.m. It seems that the oil people and the environment minister were really partying.
Now, the minister is saying that it was very important to invite them because they have a role to play in the transition. My colleague from La Prairie would say that it is like inviting Dracula to a blood bank. Those are his words.
My grandfather, who was a very wise man, used to say, “Tell me what company you keep and I will tell you who you are”. Today, we know who the Liberals are, and it is reflected in the budget update. The Liberals tell us that they are supposedly going to eliminate subsidies to oil companies, which is not the case, because they are only eliminating some of them. One positive aspect, though, is flow-through shares.
However, the government is subsidising small modular nuclear reactors. These reactors are only being sent to Alberta and the north to be used at oil sands processing facilities to produce more oil.
Does anyone know of any person, city or street in Canada that needs a small nuclear power plant on a skateboard on a street corner? Does anyone think they are for domestic use? No, these are oil subsidies. That is what the government is shamelessly doing. I wonder how the Liberals wake up in the morning feeling good about themselves when they say one thing and do the opposite. I would have a hard time with that and would struggle to look in the mirror every morning even just to shave. Maybe that is why the environment minister has a beard. Perhaps he struggles to look in the mirror to shave.
There is nothing for health care. As the Minister of Health said, this is a futile debate, and the money is not important. He wants to pay his doctors with love and sunshine. I hope he has good genes. He says that funding is not important, because the provinces have money. This is the new strategy. The provinces have been helping people with inflation by sending cheques, so that means they have money.
We look at the budget statement, in which the Liberals claim that they will reduce the federal debt to GDP ratio from 45% to 37% in a few years. They tell us that they have the money.
The week when the Liberals told us that the provinces have too much money, they announce in their statement cheques to reimburse the goods and services tax. They announce measures, but the provinces do not have the right to do anything at all. Essentially, what the Liberals are telling us is not to spend any more money on education or child care, not to help our seniors any more, not to build any more roads, to give up on public transit and certainly not move into an energy transition because as soon as we spend one penny, we will be told that we should have invested in health. According to their argument, which is flawed and preposterous, we should close down schools to prove to them that we truly need money for health. It is plain to see how the federal government is part of the problem.
Ottawa has money to subsidize the oil companies. It has money for that. Today, it had money for a military intervention. It can give money to Asian countries to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, as announced today. There is money in Ottawa.
There is money to undermine our public dental plans for children. They have money for that. There is money for GST rebate cheques, to lower the second tax bracket for people who make $90,000, $100,000 and more. That is what they call the middle class because they assume that people cannot count. There is money for permanent facilities on Roxham Road for Liberal donor friends. They have money for that.
The Liberals need to stand up, show some backbone, meet with the health ministers and get the money out.
1584 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to make an observation. Until last spring, only one party in the House was concerned about inflation: the Bloc Québécois.
For years now, inflation in health care costs has been running at 6%. Year after year, the Bloc Québécois has fought for what the provinces and Quebec want, specifically increases in health transfers, because this inflation prevents us from providing care to our people. It has existed for years in the health care system.
I would like to ask my colleague why he is not prepared to support increasing health transfers up to 35% of the cost of the system. That must be the top priority for anyone who cares about inflation and about people.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague delivered yet another of the very well-organized speeches we have come to expect from him, so it is clear to me that the Conservatives oppose Bill C‑31. I get it; the bill is very poorly written. However, given that they would rather the federal government essentially cease to exist, I assume they are also against giving money to Quebec so it can improve its own system.
That being the case, is the Conservative Party now against transfers, including upping provincial health transfers to 35%? Are they now against what Quebec and all the provinces want?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see you back here in the House. I sincerely hope you had a nice summer. It was probably much like mine, with a lot of time spent resolving problems with passport applications. Of course, we always enjoy helping our constituents.
We are considering a bill with noble goals and intentions. Bill C-252 deals with the prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at little children. I am pleased to speak to the bill because I will probably be at the standing committee on health for the clause-by-clause study. There are a number of items that I will be very interested in looking at; I will come back to that later.
First, we must acknowledge that there is an obesity problem among adults and children. If we believe a report from the public health officer for Quebec dating from 2016, the trend is still clear. Fully 52% of the population is overweight. Approximately 18% of people are obese, and that is also true among children between the ages of two and 17. In children aged two to 17, the prevalence of obesity or excess weight has increased from 15% to 26% over time. The diagnosis is clear. We need to act. I think there is a role for public policy-makers and governments to play. That is essentially what this bill does, without claiming to fix everything.
We know the long-term consequences of childhood obesity. There is no clear cause-and-effect relationship, but we do know that there is an epidemiological link to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, musculoskeletal conditions and certain cancers. Preventing these diseases becomes even more important. Obviously, this is a prevention bill. However, the Liberal government, which includes the member who introduced this bill, refuses to give Quebec and the provinces the health transfers they are calling for in order to be able to provide people with the necessary care.
I would therefore encourage my colleague to pressure her caucus and her government. I know her well because her riding is not far from mine. I know her constituents are like mine. They think health transfers are important. I also know she has a member of the National Assembly in her riding, one of the MNAs who unanimously called for health transfers. It is important to listen, but it is also important to look ahead, and there are a lot of good things in this bill.
Some will see this as proof the government thinks it knows everything. They will see the bill as a socialist conspiracy. That is pretty much what my Conservative colleague was insinuating.
I can actually hear a small child in the House of Commons. That child may one day be protected by this piece of legislation.
Children cannot differentiate between information and persuasion. Their brains are not capable of it. The Standing Committee on Health heard from the president of the Association des pédiatres du Québec about child development. Children begin to distinguish persuasion from content around four or five years of age, but it is not until they reach seven or eight that they can really tell the difference between ads and content. They may not really understand until they are 11 or 12.
Most of the time, these ads are not meant to convince anyone, to provide information or to help consumers make informed decisions. It is persuasion aimed at children who are not in a position to make rational and informed decisions, which is why we need to support them.
I can assure the House that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill and this principle. I think it is a good thing. This bill is also consistent with the Quebec government's 2019 action plan to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and promote water. Water can be drunk, but oil cannot. The Quebec government states in its report that the consumption of sugary drinks and the marketing practices that promote their consumption must be de-normalized. There is, after all, a cause and effect relationship.
Of course, someone in Alberta could always make comparisons and think they are just as thin as a Quebecker, and wonder why Quebeckers have advertizing laws. Such statements do not work. These statistics and comparisons between different jurisdictions are pretty shaky. This is counterfactual thinking, and these arguments are pretty weak. At the very least, it is hard to imagine that this bill will make the situation any worse.
Quebec's policy was obviously designed to prompt a reduction in the consumption of sugary drinks. The Bloc Québécois is here in Parliament to express the consensus of the Quebec National Assembly, the vision of Quebeckers and the vision of the Government of Quebec. It would be consistent with our mission in the Bloc Québécois to support this bill, at least at second reading so that it can be sent to committee.
This bill also reflects the recommendations made by the WHO in 2010. The Government of Quebec was not alone in considering this issue. This WHO report applies to the whole world, not just Quebec. One of the recommendations made by the WHO in its 2010 report reads as follows: “Given that the effectiveness of marketing is a function of exposure and power, the overall policy objective should be to reduce both the exposure of children to, and power of, marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids...”. In short, we need to take action.
Experts have recognized that there is a link between marketing and consumption. We are not saying that it is a definitive link. We are saying that there is a link and we must act. That is consistent with the Quebec government's position, the Quebec government's strategy, the WHO's position and how the Bloc Québécois has voted in the past. I am thinking in particular of Bill C‑237, which, I believe, was passed unanimously by the House of Commons at first or second reading. We are being consistent with our past voting and support. We will continue in that vein with the bill being studied. There is also Bill C‑228 on food and beverage marketing directed at children; it died on the Order Paper.
It is only fitting that we support this bill. I invite my colleagues, including the Conservatives, to vote in favour of this bill. Let us support it because as parliamentarians we know that second reading is not a final step. If there are concerns to be addressed, corrections to be made and discussions required, I can assure my colleague on the Standing Committee on Health that she will find a colleague ready to work constructively on this bill, which I find quite promising. I know that it is well intentioned. Let us refer it to committee.
We are looking for some assurances in committee. First of all, Quebec did not help develop the federal, provincial and territorial framework for action to promote healthy weights. Quebec does not endorse any pan-Canadian response that encroaches on its jurisdictions, so we will have to ensure that this holds true for this bill. Furthermore, Quebec alone is responsible for developing and implementing programs to promote a healthy lifestyle within its borders. I say that, but, at first glance, it does not appear that the bill currently under consideration encroaches on our jurisdiction.
Plus, a simple reminder that Quebec has full jurisdiction over health matters, which I feel needs to be pointed out every day, if not every hour. Furthermore, we must ensure that the bill will not interfere with Quebec's jurisdiction over civil law. Section 248 of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act already prohibits advertising directed at children.
The bill does not seem to go much further, except that the Quebec legislation does not currently regulate store windows, displays, containers, packaging, labels, and so on. Some procedures will therefore need to be reviewed. Perhaps we will find out why my Conservative colleagues do not like the Quebec legislation.
I have said it many times and I will say it agin. The intention is good. The public health objective is good. The reasoning behind the bill is quite rational and well thought out. Now, once again, as is often the case with issues related to health legislation, there is a fine line between Quebec's jurisdiction and the federal government's jurisdiction. However, it is obviously worth it, because the health of our children is of the utmost importance. It is worth passing this bill at second reading, sitting down and studying it diligently. I invite all my fellow parliamentarians to do just that.
1472 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I apologize. I am sorry for having to be told and I will be sure not to do it again.
Bill C-31 has no teeth and has nothing to do with dental health. It does not meet dental needs. It is not insurance, and it is not dental insurance. This bill reflects a total lack of understanding of the existing programs in Quebec and also in other provinces.
I am going to explain what Bill C‑31 really does. All it does is top up the family benefits and the Canada child benefit that already exist. The Bloc Québécois asked for targeted measures to help families with children, low-income families, taxi drivers and people currently affected by rising prices. However, all the government is saying is that it will top up the Canada child benefit for families with an income of less than $90,000 a year to help them deal with the increased cost of living. Now the NDP is telling the government that this bill has no teeth. The government says that those who want the benefit should submit the dentist's bill, even if it is just for $1, $2 or $3 for strawberry-flavored fluoride, for example, and they will be fully reimbursed.
The Minister of Health is an economist, so he should know that there are no assurances in that. He should know that this program may help families, but instead of increasing their benefits, the government wants them to submit their receipts to the Canada Revenue Agency, fill out forms in triplicate and use the My Account portal. We all know how well MyAccount works and how much everybody loves using it. The government wants people to fill out paperwork, and if they do not have the money to pay for care up front, then they need to fill out even more paperwork to get the money up front and eventually receive care. Ordinarily, if the NDP were not here to get in the way of families and these benefits, the government would give the people money and they would go to the dentist or wherever. This bill is a benefits increase disguised as a dental program where families are asked to spend their time filling out paperwork. I congratulate the NDP.
This whole thing is meant to give the NDP members a chance to parade around their ridings, lying through their teeth about having achieved something for dental health. I have news for them: They have been shafted, and on top of that, families will to deal with red tape. This is unacceptable.
It is especially unacceptable because Quebec is getting shafted even more than the NDP on this issue. To qualify for this Canada child benefit top-up, the child's dental care must not be fully covered through private or public insurance. However, since 1974, Quebec has had an extremely progressive policy for children under 10. It covers most of the services that families need. This program could be enhanced, which would be possible if Ottawa would provide health transfers. This program means that Quebeckers who go to the dentist for routine care do not have to pay a cent. They are not eligible for this federal money. What should Quebeckers do, ask for strawberry-flavoured fluoride or an extra filling? Should we ask for additional services and try to spend more at the dentist, just so we can get a benefit that could have been enhanced, by consensus in the House, at the touch of a button? This is all because of the little deal reached between the Liberals and the NDP. The Liberals do not want to talk to the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives or the Greens in order to work the way a Parliament should work.
Not surprisingly, when the Liberals unveiled Bill C‑31, they came off looking kind of foolish. The day they made the announcement, there just happened to be a press conference in Quebec where people in the field, people who had spent more than just a couple of weeks thinking and talking about the issue, people who are very familiar with the issue, asked the Government of Quebec to increase public coverage in Quebec and urge Ottawa to boost health transfers. These people were asked what they thought of the federal government's Bill C‑31, which will not actually cover any additional services and will get families tangled up in red tape, forcing them to take the kids on fun family outings to the Canada Revenue Agency instead of helping them with their homework.
Unions, seniors' advocacy groups and the poor responded quite eloquently to Bill C‑31. I want to read from a document that I have here. The response is so clear that I could not have said it better myself. They said that it is nonsense.
That is what people in the know are saying. For years, they have been asking for services, for real coverage. They are asking to be able to go to the dentist under an existing program and have the services already covered.
We have gotten to this point because the federal government broke its promise to negotiate health transfers with the provinces. Since the start of the pandemic, the Prime Minister has been telling us that there is a pandemic going on, that now is not the time, that it is too soon. The government said that once the pandemic was over, it would negotiate increased health transfers with the provinces, as Quebec and the provinces are calling for. Everyone agrees on increasing health transfers, except the federal government. When it comes to health transfers, the government has no money, but when it comes to things the NDP wants, there is always money available.
The pandemic is over. The temporary EI measures are set to be lifted on Sunday. Some 60% of workers in Quebec and Canada who are receiving EI will be left high and dry, on the basis that the pandemic is over. It does seem to be over, since Bill C‑31 would implement measures to increase families' purchasing power, given that we are in the midst of a postpandemic surge in inflation, which we hope is temporary.
Enough with this nonsense. People need real care. Children need real dental care. The provinces are the experts here, and that is how it should be. The government must keep its word.
I want to conclude by saying that we will vote in favour of the bill because we support the principle. I think it needs some work in committee. With a few fillings, some fluoride, a good brushing, a rinse and a few amendments, this bill might just pass the smell test.
1141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/7/22 4:42:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec, the provinces and Quebec's health sector are calling for an increase to the Canada health transfer to cover 35% of system costs. Not only is there no health transfer increase this year, next year, the year after or the years after that, but the government goes so far as to write that if the provinces call Ottawa, they will be advised about how to better manage their health care systems and make them more effective.
Can the minister tell me why she thinks that a government that has never managed a hospital in its life can manage health care systems better than the provinces?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 4:41:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Terrebonne.
I want to begin by stressing the importance of pre-budget consultations and their particular significance this year. We are emerging from two years of a pandemic. It has been extremely difficult. Our businesses, taxpayers, workers and families have been through trying times, something quite out of the ordinary. Given those circumstances, it is more important than ever to consult our constituents, our organizations, the business community, so that we are drawing ideas from the grassroots level.
I am an optimist, and I cannot wait to see the budget this Thursday. However, we are already starting to get the feeling today that things are not going well and that there is a chance we will be disappointed. Let us start with health.
We know that the pandemic was very hard on the health sector. There has been a lot of focus on COVID-19 patients, COVID-19-related deaths, and long-haulers. We are there for them. It is still very hard for many people, but we cannot forget the triaging, the surgeries that had to be delayed and the families who have had to go through extremely difficult times.
We have seen this in other countries. Switzerland comes to mind, for example. Certain other countries have more resilient health care systems. They were more resilient because they have been reformed. They have been reformed because funding was available and more hospital beds were available. This enabled them to do better in the pandemic and to reduce the economic costs associated with all the lockdown measures. What we need now in order to deal with future crises, to clear the backlog of surgeries, to clear all the backlogs, are health transfers with no strings attached, transfers that cover 35% of system costs. Indeed, our health care systems need to be reformed.
The Quebec health minister has already presented a major reform plan, but it needs to be funded. As we know, the money is here in Ottawa. We had a long list of health care stakeholders in Quebec today. Everyone was there, including general practitioners, specialists, unions. These people are calling for health transfers with no strings attached in order to ensure predictable funding so that we can plan reforms. These are the people who work on the ground, in hospitals. These are the people who take care of others.
I imagine that the budget is pretty much ready to go, that copies are being printed and bound in pretty plastic covers. When we asked the Minister of Health the question, he said that, yes, the government would be giving small amounts. I am sure the member for Winnipeg North will talk about that later. The government is handing out money, but these are ad hoc microtransfers, bits of money here and there. Then the Minister of Health expects us to thank him for that. In the meantime, he is refusing to meet with people in Quebec who take care of the sick day after day.
This is one of our demands, something we need to support the budget. We are proud of that because it is what Quebeckers and others want. The federal government is the one with the money and it has to recommit. We are also asking for the Canada social transfer to be brought back to its 1993‑94 levels.
The Conservatives are on their soapbox again. Last time it was about their love for Paul Martin. Today it is Paul Martin, Jean Chrétien and John Manley. They like all the Liberals who made cuts. As I have said before, starting in 1995, they merged the health and social transfers and then made repeated cuts to them. We are still not back to the same level of funding as we had before.
The Canada social transfer is used for post‑secondary education, social assistance, early childhood education, and educational services. It is astounding to hear the Liberals brag about interfering in provincial jurisdictions when it comes to child care when, for years, they have not made up for any lost ground with the Canada social transfer. That should be done. It is necessary. The provincial governments are the ones providing the services. When the federal government tries, it rarely goes well. We are seeing that right now with Citizenship and Immigration.
I attended and participated in the budget consultations at the Standing Committee on Finance. Before the marriage between the NDP and the Liberals was even consummated, people were already asking questions. The recommendations were presented, and we told them that they fell under provincial jurisdiction. However, they do not understand what these jurisdictions are.
Last week, the member for Fredericton told me that she understands why the Bloc wants the government to stay out of provincial jurisdictions but that mental health is such an important issue that the government should intervene.
I have no doubt that they are sincere, but sincerity and incompetence do not get us anywhere. What matters is money, and it needs to be given to those on the ground.
Let us talk about the cost of living. As an economist, I know that the supply chain and the issues we have had are partly to blame for the inflationary pressures we are experiencing. The Conservatives are living in their own little world, where the Earth is flat and there is nothing outside our borders.
I know that all these supply problems are a big source of the inflationary pressure, but there is another factor at play. Inflation has been at 2%, or between 1% and 3%, for decades, so families, businesses, governments and anyone who needs to procure goods have planned their finances around a predictable inflation rate of 2%. Everyone was taken by surprise.
The most vulnerable members of society are among those who were taken by surprise. Some families are struggling to make ends meet. They are being told that this is temporary, that it will not last long. They are being told that they only have to go hungry for two years, then inflation will go back to 2%.
The Bloc Québécois believes that these people need to be supported. This must be done through an increase in the GST credit when inflation is above 3%. Indeed, there is a monetary policy commitment that inflation would not exceed 3%. The frequency of cheques could also be increased. It is important to help these people, because they are struggling financially right now.
Let us talk green finance. We want to see that in the budget. During question period today, the environment minister once again boasted about eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. To hear him tell it, one would think the Liberals had been in power for six months, but they have been in power since 2015.
The subsidies are still there, and the government is still dumping taxpayer dollars into fossil fuels. That kind of short-term thinking is what gets the world in trouble. That kind of short-term thinking means that, when gas is $2 a litre, we will be even more dependent on it. That is what we need to work on.
Our financial institutions must disclose climate risk. That is under federal jurisdiction, but the one time they do have jurisdiction over something, they do not use it.
We also need to change the the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board's mandate. It is clear from what the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is doing and from all the financial innovations at Desjardins that people want green investments. We have to put money toward the transition.
The CPP Investment Board has come up with its own strategy. It wants to invest in carbon capture. Carbon capture does not exist, though. It is a last-ditch strategy that may one day enable us to knock out the last few units, the last few metric tonnes of emissions, but they are up to their eyeballs in oil.
Let us talk about access to water. Are the Liberals proud of their legacy? The Chrétien government promised our first nations access to drinking water, Paul Martin made a commitment to that effect, and the current government keeps talking about it, but it has not happened yet, even though drinking water is essential.
I will talk about farming because it is very important to my riding, Mirabel. Earlier during question period, the Minister of Agriculture told us that our farmers know how much they will be getting in compensation. Their market was stolen from them with CUSMA, but they will not be getting their money until next year. I feel like going up to every government MP and telling them that their salary is x amount, but I will not pay it until next year, so good luck with the mortgage.
Those payments need to be moved up. Farmers are important. They are the ones who feed us. Farmers, especially those who are supply managed, are having a very tough time right now because of input costs.
I will close by saying that expectations are high and I am very worried about the signs I am seeing.
1556 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 4:40:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, the agreement between the Liberals and the NDP is not the only agreement that was negotiated in the dead of night. The 1982 Constitution, which was negotiated in the middle of the night to the detriment of Quebec, clearly states that health is a responsibility of Quebec.
Can my colleague tell me why the NDP is always ready to help everyone? It is even prepared to help the Liberals have a majority.
However, it is never there when it comes to respecting Quebec's jurisdictions or getting the Prime Minister to sit down with the premiers of Quebec and the nine other provinces to arrange health transfers with no strings attached.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/4/22 1:29:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that more health care funding is needed. I think that the government needs to unconditionally increase health transfers to cover 35% of system costs.
I do want to make a small correction. I am very concerned about the federal government interfering in provincial jurisdictions and, in many respects, I do not agree with the NDP's proposed funding method, which would involve even more interference in Quebec's jurisdictions.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his bill.
It is important that we take a health-based approach. That is obviously the Quebec government's approach. However, we know very well that this approach cannot be funded through good intentions alone.
I would like to know exactly which section of the bill proposes to increase unconditional health transfers to the provinces so that the Canada health transfer covers 35% of provincial system costs.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/21 11:58:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is no hiding it: the Speech from the Throne is a bit like a paint by numbers. There is a general outline, but no colour. Since my hon. colleague wants to work with the other parties, I will take this opportunity to talk about health care funding.
This is about caring for people. Quebec and the provinces are asking that transfers for health care, including mental health care, be increased unconditionally to cover 35% of the system's costs. This means acting now, listening and respecting the Constitution, because health is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Is my colleague willing to help his government understand that this is an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
