- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
- May/29/23 7:45:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I notice that the longer the answers are, the more they seem like a “no” in disguise.
We know that during the pandemic, health care was underfunded, that there was a shortage of hospital beds that led to people being turned away, and that the pandemic measures needed to be extended.
If, during the pandemic, we had had a dental plan like the one the minister is planning, how many more hospital beds would Quebec have had as a result of that dental plan?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:45:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I like clear answers.
Do the minister and her government plan to offer the Government of Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation? Yes or no?
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:43:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, the minister confirmed that she supports the ongoing underfunding and that she also borrowed on behalf of the provinces. This is not a gift from the federal government. The money that the federal government sent during the pandemic was borrowed money.
Now there is no money for health care, but there is money for a dental plan. This is being done with the help of the federal spending power, which is the instrument of the fiscal imbalance.
The federal government is going to expand this program. The Government of Quebec and the Quebec National Assembly are unanimously calling for Quebec to be given the right to opt out with full financial compensation.
Will the Liberal government give Quebec the right to opt out with full financial compensation?
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:33:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to get angry.
My colleague started by telling me that the government is good at administering programs, and he spoke about employment insurance. I hope that the government will not dip into the dental care fund as it did with the EI fund, because it is not doing a good job of administering that.
Health care is a provincial jurisdiction and an area where the federal government often shows its incompetence. We know that from experience. What the Government of Quebec is saying is that health is important to us and that existing programs must be improved.
What Quebec is saying is that birthing rooms remain closed, there is a lack of palliative care, cancers are going undiagnosed, emergency rooms in the regions are struggling to stay open, and mental health services are unavailable. We are not saying that dental care is not important, but rather that the NDP is using this issue for electoral purposes. We see that clearly. That said, as public decision-makers, we must set our priorities. The NDP is making the next election its priority.
186 words
- 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
Madam Speaker, during the Quebec election campaign, groups that have been calling for expanded dental coverage for years held a press conference the same day that Bill C-31 was released, which clearly has not changed. They basically said that the bill was all nonsense.
Quebec parents will be ineligible for much of the care, not all, but a large amount of care, because Quebec has already taken some steps. Now we are told that Quebec should get some help to pay for those efforts. The ministers keep telling us that all parents will be eligible and so on. The problem is the word “eligible”. Their definition of “eligible” excludes 130,000 Quebec parents.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are 338 members in the House. We were elected by people who went to the polls and asked us to work for them in a constructive manner to develop better public policies, better transfer programs, to improve their quality of life and the quality of services. I am utterly convinced that despite our different views on a number of things, the 338 people seated here today are here for the right reasons. That is why we need to work together.
When we develop public policies like the ones in Bill C‑31, we have to work hard in a non-partisan way to deliver better programs, especially with an ambitious bill like this. This forces us to collaborate, reflect, draft several versions of the bill, amend it, consult people, experts, the communities and respect the voice of those who elected us. That too is part of our job.
That is the part of our job we were prevented from doing with the botched process surrounding Bill C‑31, which was disrespectful of parliamentarians. This bill was concocted at the last minute in the middle of the summer because the leader of the NDP went on the news and said that their agreement might be off. Now we find ourselves stuck with Bill C‑31. Truly, this bill seems like it was drafted on a napkin. When something is cobbled together at the last minute, the parliamentary process becomes even more important. The role of members of Parliament and the opposition parties, the experience and the expertise on both sides of the House become even more crucial in improving this bill, which is obviously more likely to be flawed than bills that have been introduced once, twice or three times in the House and that have already been examined in parliament.
How can we contribute to this work? Through hours of debate in the House and the work we do in committee. That takes time, planning and preparation. We can speed things up a little, but it takes energy, time and witnesses from society at large. We cannot do our work in a vacuum. We cannot do that. The people who elect us deserve better. We need numbers, like the ones we get from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It takes time to introduce amendments, to consider those amendments, to study and debate them. Sometimes, amendments enable us to ensure nobody is excluded by these policies. That is definitely true of Bill C‑31.
Then we come back to the House at report stage and third reading. The hours we spend debating bills to improve them are important. Anyone who truly believes in the parliamentary system and in our institutions sees the value in that.
I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North over there. He knows this better than most because he spends 23 hours a day debating in the House.
After doing that work, then at least we can be confident that the work was done. Obviously we are not all going to vote the same way. Most of the time, we are not going to agree, but we will all have the sense that we did what we were supposed to and that we are voting on work that is as complete as it should be.
In this case, we did not skip one step, we did not skip two steps, we did not skip three steps. We skipped every step of the legislative process. Parliamentarians were fully prevented from doing their job. We were subjugated by the executive branch of government. In effect, parliamentarians were muzzled, both in committee and here in the House. It felt like we were being told that we had nothing to say, that we were not being constructive, when the government imposed not just closure, but super closure.
After muzzling the House, the government told us we had nothing more to say. Apparently we did have things to say, things that could have improved this bill. Members on this side of the House are just as competent as members across the way. We were told that the committee would sit on a Monday evening from 7 p.m. until midnight. If the work was not done at midnight, if there was a fire alarm or some such interruption, the amendments would no longer be negotiated and would no longer be discussed. Our work would go in the garbage, and the bill would be adopted as-is at report stage.
We were prevented from hearing from some witnesses. Oddly enough, we had originally agreed to have four hours of testimony. We had an in camera meeting two days later, and the witnesses were gone. We had only an hour and a half with two ministers at the same time. I must say, the ministers were ill prepared and visibly uncomfortable with the bill. The Minister of Health is an excellent economist of international renown. I could see in his eyes how uncomfortable he was with certain parts of the bill. It was palpable.
Thus, it was decided that witnesses would no longer appear and, in the end, we wound up with a bill that was not amended by the committee. What is worse, we were prevented from presenting amendments after the ministers appeared, even though we had already been prevented from hearing from witnesses. The whole amendment process was therefore short-circuited. We know that sometimes amendments are not adopted. We know that the government and the NDP, which joined forces—that is not an accusation; it is a fact—might not have adopted the amendments, but those amendments still deserved to be discussed.
This bill is therefore going to be rammed through today without any parliamentary scrutiny. As a relatively new parliamentarian, I am very disappointed by that. This is not just a closure motion. It is a super closure motion.
I see members of the Standing Committee on Health here in the House. We are in the habit of working together, talking to each other and understanding each other. We do not agree on everything, but we are able to compromise. We know that we are capable of doing that. However, the government prevented us from doing so. I felt the discomfort on both sides of the House. I felt it from the Bloc Québécois and from the Conservatives. I also felt it from government members on Monday evening in committee because they were not being allowed to do their job.
Who pays for that? We know that voter turnout is dropping. People are becoming increasingly cynical about politics. People are less and less interested in it, and now we are showing those people that this is what the democratic process is like, that MPs serve no purpose, that there is no regard for their work. Then we wonder why the public has lost confidence in our institutions.
Who will pay because people were left out of Bill C‑31? It will be the progressive parents and children in Quebec who decided to pay for certain services for those 10 and under, services that are also paid for by the federal program but that we will not be compensated for. Progressive parents in Quebec are therefore being penalized, and future generations are being jeopardized.
The Liberals and the NDP say that dental care is health care, and rightly so. It is part of overall health, but we are talking about the future of universal public health care. Essentially, the provinces are being told that if they develop these services and eventually integrate them into their health care system, the federal government will penalize them.
Who will pay for that? It will be the 86,000 people who do not qualify for the housing benefit because they live in low-rent housing or co-operatives, which are progressive housing construction models adopted by Quebec. With a small, two-line amendment, we could have included these people in the federal program, but the government refused. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert and I wrote again to the two ministers concerned, the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion and the Minister of Health. Since they love the Queen and the King, we implored them to use their royal prerogative to include those people. We received an acknowledgement of receipt, but that is about all.
Despite all the good intentions, how can we encourage strategic assistance for housing with a bill based on such a principle? How can we encourage the provinces to create permanent programs for housing construction when the federal government establishes programs that will penalize them for it later?
The government is basically saying that since some provinces have made an effort, it will take Canadian taxpayers' money and send it to the provinces that have not made that effort. That is the issue. Clearly, this is a flawed and unacceptable process.
The Bloc Québécois would have liked to do more to improve this bill, but as it stands, we will not be able to support it at second and third reading.
1532 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/22 3:09:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the the worst part is that a dental cheque discriminates against Quebeckers, who already pay taxes in Quebec to cover the cost of dental care for children.
The bottom line is that Quebeckers have 23% of the children but will get 13% of this federal money. That means about half of the children in Quebec will not be covered by the NDP-Liberals' poor excuse for a program.
Basically, Quebeckers pay taxes to cover their children's dental care. This new program means they will also be covering dental care for children in other provinces thanks to the NDP and the Liberals.
How can the Prime Minister justify that?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/22 3:08:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government's dental cheque scheme is supposed to provide relief for families facing the rising cost of living. That is the title of this bill: the cost of living relief act.
However, if the Prime Minister really wanted to help families, he could have increased family allowances, and all families would have benefited.
Instead, he came up with a cheque scheme that does not help all families, that discriminates against Quebec families and that forces parents to navigate CRA bureaucracy. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that a child in Quebec is half as likely to be eligible.
What will the Prime Minister do to stop this discrimination?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 2:42:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will give members another reason why their dental care cheque discriminates against Quebeckers.
It is because a greater number of us have group insurance that covers dental care. In Quebec, both workers and employers make contributions to provide this service for our children. Today, the federal government is taking tax money from those same workers, who are making an effort, to write cheques to other people, who are not making that same effort.
Do the Liberals and the NDP realize that they are discriminating against thousands of Quebeckers, mainly unionized workers?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 2:41:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the government's and the NDP's dental care plan discriminates against Quebeckers.
Parents of children 12 and under in Quebec will receive half as much as parents in Canada. Only 50% of Quebec children will be eligible, whereas 100% of Quebec taxpayers will contribute. That is discrimination courtesy of the NDP and the Liberal Party. However, discrimination can be addressed.
What will the government do to stop it?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He refers to provincial programs as though they were leftover programs and inadequate solutions, when the Quebec program already exists. What we are asking is not just to tell them to accept the program as it is and give us the money. What Quebec is asking for is the right to opt out with full financial compensation for programs with comparable objectives.
I understand that they want to do something big that they call “national”. They say this is the Parliament of Canada and that this applies to all Canadians, but when it was time for the carbon tax, the provinces that performed like Quebec with its permit trading system, the government was very proud to allow Quebec to opt out because it was effective.
Why does that work for the carbon tax but, suddenly, when the government has this desire to centralize everything, the principle of asymmetry no longer exists?
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if it was my words that were criticized, I could withdraw them, but it is a bit more difficult with my finger.
We are in a situation where a family has to go to the CRA, fill in paperwork and be audited. To qualify for this enhanced benefit, they will have to go to the dentist to seek services not covered by current programs and get through a bunch of red tape. Instead of helping their children do their homework, instead of spending time with their children, they will spend their time being audited to qualify for an amount that is not related to dental costs.
It is even worse, because we are waiting for some figures from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We know that Quebec will have to pay for this. Quebec has a generous program that can be improved. This can be negotiated with the Quebec government. Quebec has a dental care program that covers children 10 years of age and under. It can be improved. The system already exists. The computer system already exists. Dentists know it, parents know it. For example, after paying for a child's filling, people are automatically reimbursed.
Because we get results, because we look after our own, because we have a system, because we stand together, because Quebeckers are united, they will pay. Parents in Quebec will not have access to as many benefits as parents in the rest of Canada. That is what is going to happen. In Ottawa, Quebec is paying the price for its solidarity. In Ottawa, Quebec is paying the price for looking after its own people.
The intentions may have been good, but who will be paying? It is the children of Quebec, the renters of Quebec and the single people of Quebec who will pay. I am not making it up when I say that nearly 87,000 Quebeckers will not qualify for the benefit. Between 80% and 90% of people do not qualify.
Let us return to the gag order, because it is of fundamental importance. These people from the NDP and the Liberal Party think they are so smart, so good, but they have tunnel vision. They have forgotten Quebec, they have forgotten Ontario, they have forgotten the New Brunswick dental care program. They have forgotten everyone except themselves.
They think they are so great that there is no need for debate. They think that because we have chosen not to get into bed with the government and have instead decided to support bills that are good for Quebec, to vote at second reading, to debate in committee, to examine bills clause by clause, and to do their job, the job they are elected and paid to do, we are not smart enough. They think we are not capable of reading a bill, improving it, looking after our constituents.
What are the NDP members doing? They are playing the government's game and supporting a gag order. Shame on those who go into politics, who get elected in opposition, in the party with the least number of seats in the House, and who claim they have the individual right to quash debate in this democratic chamber. Shame on them.
538 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, how can I say this? Gag orders, or time allocation motions in Parliament, are the nuclear option. That is what majority governments use most of the time to muzzle Parliament and put an end to debate, the exchange of ideas and everything citizens voted for on election day. That is why they should be avoided as much as possible. Because they are supposed to protect the work of the opposition, the opposition parties usually do not support gag orders.
However, in this 44th Parliament, we have now reached 23 stages of bills that have been fast-tracked. Four government motions were adopted under a gag order and there were also 17 other time allocation motions. Why is that? It is because we are caught up in some sort of parliamentary racket involving the Liberals and the new undemocratic party of Canada. We are talking here about undermining the work of Parliament.
We expected it to start in March, when the Liberals and the NDP reached their agreement, but it started with the Emergencies Act, when the NDP members were more than willing to stand up in the House one fine Monday, when there was not a single trucker left in the streets, and vote alongside the government for one reason only: to protect their seats. They did not want to justify their decisions to their constituents. They voted in favour of what were clearly human rights violations then, and they have done so ever since on things like budget bills.
We hear them yelling. As we all know, rubbing salt in the wound can be painful.
Then, they went on to ram through a number of bills and motions, all of which rejected Quebec. The NDP members allowed a gag order to be imposed on Bill C‑13 while the Bloc Québécois was asking, for example, that the Charter of the French Language apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. Not only did they vote against us, they allowed for a gag order to be imposed to fast-track Bill C‑13. What is Bill C‑13? It will allow Michael Rousseau, Air Canada, Via Rail and Canadian National to determine the language in which they work in Quebec. What language is that? It is English.
That is the NDP. It is a far cry from the days of Jack Layton, the days the NDP wants to forget, back when they pretended to have principles. We know they have none. Indeed, principles are not supposed to change over time. What a far cry from the days when the NDP stated, in its Sherbrooke declaration, “The national character of Quebec is based...on...a primarily Francophone society in which French is recognized as the language of work and the common public language”. Those are the words of the NDP, and yet, as I said, we are a far cry from that.
Do we know why they are constantly voting alongside the government? It is to keep their seats and to provide stability that the Liberal Party does not deserve considering the policies it is bringing forward, like Bill C‑31, which, to be perfectly honest, is badly done, poorly written and ill thought-out.
This shameful process, which the NDP supports, seeks to shut down the work of Parliament and muzzle parliamentarians. Without even getting into the content of Bill C‑31, we can see that the process that led to it was already tainted by some next-level dishonesty.
How do they proceed? As we know, the Liberals were not able to deliver a universal dental program last summer. As we know, this is not part of their skill set. They do not run establishments. Then, the leader of the NDP got angry. He lost it. He went to the media and threatened to destabilize the government. The Prime Minister got scared. They had a quick meeting to hastily slap together a piece of legislation, believing they could take some half-measure that will not even help families in Quebec or Canada with dental care—I will come back to that—and, in so doing, justify their existence.
Obviously that is unacceptable for Quebec. It not only infringes on its constitutional jurisdiction, but on its jurisdiction in general. This is not a federal jurisdiction.
To force it down our throats, the Liberals said they would include a small housing measure, that they would give people a nice little $500 cheque. They said that if we were to stand up for Quebec's interests and take the time to think before implementing such an ambitious program, they would go to our constituents and tell them that we voted against a bill that offered money for rent. Can my colleagues see how twisted the democratic process is getting? That is what is unacceptable.
Bill C-31 should have been split into two bills. We could have discussed housing separately and assessed that measure on its own merits. We could have discussed what they are calling “dental care”. They do not even understand their own bill. They think that there is something in it for teeth, but there is nothing. We could have discussed it separately if the bill had been split in two.
If the NDP were not afraid of what it is proposing, it would not be afraid to debate it here. It would not be afraid to use all the debate time provided for in the Standing Orders. It would not be afraid to hear from the other opposition parties, although we are no longer even sure if the NDP still counts as part of the opposition. Now we are in the House today, being silenced from talking about a bad bill.
I wondered if it was even worth sending the bill to committee for study, since the government was backing us into a corner by adding a housing assistance component. As we know, there is a housing crisis in Quebec. It is affecting Mirabel, and it is taking a toll on residents. I was in Saint‑Janvier last weekend, and residents there told me how hard the housing situation has been for them.
Like other parliamentarians, I thought that a small amount of $500 might help families in Mirabel. We are in a period of inflation, and a recession may be imminent, as the Liberal member mentioned in the previous question and comment period. However, neither the government nor the NDP has done its job. The Liberals and the New Democrats have not considered what the real impact of this bill would be on the ground. If they really wanted to help people, they would never have introduced a bill in this form.
This is what we did. We asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to determine what Quebec's part would be in this bill. As for me, I listen to Quebec. I am familiar with Quebec's programs and public policies. I stay informed. I know that the other provinces also have their own public policies. I am aware of all that, as the Liberal government should be. However, this government seems to be living in some kind of constitutional bubble where Quebec and the provinces do not exist and Ottawa delivers its decrees from on high. The Liberals failed to realize that Quebec already has a rent subsidy program.
Quebec already provides a rent subsidy to families with an income of $35,000 or less and to single people with an income of $20,000 who spend more than 30% of their income on housing. We therefore wondered whether the bill provided for an exclusion for Quebec. It is a good thing we asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer about that because the Liberals could not care less about Quebec. They did not provide any numbers and did not even think to provide any because they have no interest in Quebec.
What did the Parliamentary Budget Officer have to say about that? He noted that some provincial and territorial programs provide social housing assistance that caps rent at 30% of household income. That means that 118,000 Canadians, 86,700 of whom live in Quebec, would not be eligible for the benefit.
Quebec has a solid social safety net. In Quebec, we do not subscribe to this niche leftist idea of individualism that promotes individual rights and stands up for people as separate individuals. We stick together. We have a social safety net that takes care of people. We thought about housing, unlike the government, which, with its national housing strategy, needs three, four or five years to negotiate. The strategy is taking so long to put in place that the government has to give people $500 to tide them over.
Once again we can see that Quebec is paying the price for doing the right thing and properly managing its affairs. The government is proposing a housing aid program in name only. A bit over $900 million will be paid out, with more than $200 million coming from the taxes that Quebeckers pay to Ottawa. There are fully 86,700 Quebeckers who are recognized in the bill as being vulnerable. I am talking here about vulnerable families and children. As we all know, a $35,000 annual salary for a couple with children is not much.
For a single person or a single mother, $20,000 a year is not much. These people will not qualify for the same assistance as other Canadians because not one Liberal MP stood up to defend Quebeckers and not one NDP member stood up to defend Quebec. Is that what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie meant on October 4 when he said that the government had listened to the NDP's good ideas?
Will the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie explain to his constituents who make less than $35,000 that they are among the 86,700 people who will not qualify for any assistance whereas all Canadians will be entitled to some assistance? Will he do that? Is that what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie meant when he said, in his speech of October 4, “This is a minority government, and we used our position of strength to get results for people”?
Did he go to tell his constituents in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that, in the eyes of the Liberals, they are not people, they do not have a voice on this and they can take a hike, when Quebeckers pay Ottawa more than $200 million to help Ontarians and Albertans?
In Alberta and Ontario, it is easy to elect a right-wing government that does not do its job and does not maintain the social safety net, because they know that Ottawa will be trampling on their jurisdictions and do the work for them. However, in Quebec, we have our social safety net and we look after it. That is why Quebec must be able to opt out from these types of programs with financial compensation.
This is not an empty principle; it is for the good of the people. We are already managing the social safety net. We are doing more than others and we are prepared to take responsibility. We are prepared to bear the costs. However, when the federal government comes to do the same in the other provinces and Quebeckers already have programs that work and, moreover, are permanent, the money must be paid to Quebec. No one has risen to defend Quebeckers.
However, it gets worse: The member for Hochelaga is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing. As part of her work, she has to take small tours, attend small meetings, participate in small photo ops and talk about housing. Recently, in the House, she gave a speech on Bill C-31. She said, “In Hochelaga, 70% of the population consists of renters, with over 24% paying more than 30% of their income on rent.”
The member for Hochelaga could have stood up for Quebec, for Quebeckers from her region, from all our regions. She could have done the work. The same is true of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who never stands up for his people.
Will the member go into her riding and talk to single individuals who make $18,000 a year? Everyone else in Canada will get a housing benefit, but her constituents will not. There are people in her riding who need help and who are unable to get through the month with enough money to feed their children. Will she tell them that Quebeckers paid over $200 million to fund this program that will help those who voted for Doug Ford in Ontario? I hope she does. I hope she will be honest enough to do that. I am beginning to understand why the Liberals made their little deal to avoid an election. I can understand them not wanting to go to the polls and face voters.
Earlier, I asked the Minister of Health if he had told the people of Quebec City that he had forgotten them. He talked to me about co-operative housing and all kinds of things. He stopped just short of saying the private sector was doing his job. He was completely unable to look me in the eye and tell me, through the Chair, that he was going to tell the people of Quebec City that he had forgotten them, that he was not standing up for them, that he is in his bubble here in Ottawa and that his people are not important to him.
We have not even talked about the dental care component yet. The NDP wants a centralized, Canada-centric, Ottawa-centric program, a single solution for everyone. The days when the NDP wanted to win votes in Quebec are gone. The NDP no longer cares about Quebec, not now that it has just one seat left in the province.
Back in Jack Layton's day, the NDP wrote that “unity is not necessarily uniformity”. That is in the 2005 Sherbrooke Declaration. Back then, the New Democrats had principles, they did their job, they stood up for their constituents and they at least appeared to stand up for Quebeckers the way they were supposed to. In chapter 3 of the declaration, it says, “The national character of Québec is based...on...its own political, economic, cultural and social institutions, including government institutions and institutions in civil society”.
When the NDP wrote that, was it telling Quebeckers that, the day it was shown the door for not doing its job as the opposition, it would come here to set up a kind of Canada child benefit enhancement that has nothing to do with teeth?
Basically, they are telling parents in Quebec and the rest of Canada that they are going to give them a set amount of money they could have gotten anyway, because the system already exists.
Just to satisfy our NDP friends, who are yelling—
2539 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who reminds us that bullying has no place in politics.
With respect to Bill C-31, I would like to know whether my colleague from Richmond Hill is comfortable with the fact that the poorest parents are the ones who will suffer the most from this bill. In order to receive the increased Canada child benefit, they will have to deal with the Canada Revenue Agency's administrative hassle, not once but twice: first to qualify, and then to provide justification after the the fact.
I would like to know whether my colleague is comfortable with these regressive conditions in Bill C-31.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether the parliamentary secretary, who seems to fancy himself as having some sort of monopoly on empathy for children, realizes that Bill C‑31 does not provide dental care. In fact, it denies children in Quebec the increase in the Canada child benefit and makes families have to wait for the Canada Revenue Agency, wait for officials, and wait for forms to be entitled to a simple increase in the Canada child benefit. That is what the bill does.
If children's health is truly important to him, he would be in favour of increasing health transfers to the provinces and Quebec so that the existing Quebec dental insurance plan can be improved.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the NDP member just demonstrated the problem.
The member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie is going to tell his constituents that they have dental insurance. However, when parents in Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie go to the dentist with their nine-year-old child, they will realize that they still have the same insurance they had before, the one from Quebec, and they will have to ask for a slightly higher receipt and get services that are not covered in order to get the full amount.
It seems that the member spends a lot of time in parks like Molson park. I hope he will take the opportunity to tell people that to get better benefits for children they will have to waste a lot of time with CRA and maybe even suffer through an audit if the dentist cancels their day. I wish him luck at the parks.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am starting to have some experience here, so I know not to expect the member for Winnipeg North to actually listen to my speech. I said that the bill is full of cavities, but, speaking of care, there might be a way to make it better.
I understand that the member comes from a province that does not have a progressive provincial dental insurance program like Quebec does. I understand that it is not part of his culture to know that Quebec already has this type of program. The government is not helping families by duplicating the program, by complicating it and by creating obstacles for families who want an increase in family benefits. Rather than giving them money, the government is telling them to go to the CRA to have their claims verified. How is that good news for families? I would like someone to explain that to me.
153 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
