- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
- May/30/24 7:15:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my best regards to the minister. I thank her for her very good question.
I will use the same wording to answer. Does she not know that Quebec is asking for health transfers? Does she not know that Quebec needs unconditional transfers? Does she not know about the health care funding deficit? Does she not know that if Ottawa stopped saying no to health transfers, we might not be where we are today?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:14:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question.
One thing is for certain: If the federal government has money for the provinces to cover more drugs, then perhaps even more drugs could be covered if the money is sent to the provinces and they are given the right to opt out with full compensation so that they can expand programs with existing infrastructure.
However, Ottawa has this bad habit of creating structures, bureaucracy and new layers of all sorts of things that cost a lot of money. Then we end up with dental care plans like the Liberal plan that ultimately involves the private sector, which runs counter to the very principle of the Canada Health Act if it were subject to it. That is what we end up with. These are failures after failures.
What is the point of all this? It is about campaigning for the Liberals and the NDP.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:12:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are dissenting voices in every society. There are debates in every society. However, Quebec's voice is heard in the Quebec National Assembly, which is made up of 125 members who are elected by the people.
My NDP colleague's leader had the nerve to send a letter to Quebec's health minister. He literally told the health minister that he wanted a meeting with him, that he wanted to educate him and teach him how pharmacare works.
Do members know how Quebec's democracy responded? First, he was told to take a hike, because it was deeply disrespectful and ridiculous. Then, Quebec's democracy unanimously passed a motion in the National Assembly denouncing this kind of paternalistic attitude, which is, and always will be, unacceptable.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that adds a bit of spice to our evening, obviously.
As I was saying, we asked for the right to opt out with full financial compensation. That should have been granted, in the interests of patients, those who are ill and workers. However, it was denied by the Speaker on the pretext that it requires royal recommendation, when the only thing Quebec wants is to have its share of the funds that are already allocated within this bill.
This shows just how institutionalized and deep-seated Ottawa's desire is to crush Quebec, to crush Quebec's desire to act in its own areas of jurisdiction and to exercise authority within its own areas of jurisdiction based on its preferences, particularly when it comes to pharmacare. It is in the genes of Ottawa's politicians, in their DNA. What is happening here today is so unfortunate.
It is unfortunate because the interests of patients and Quebeckers are coming second. We should be greatly saddened to see that people's health is being politicized for electoral purposes. That should never be commended.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:08:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, the absence of Liberal colleagues in the House should not be mentioned.
We have tabled an amendment—
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the members who may have the courage to sit late with us this evening.
Today we are debating Bill C‑64 to supposedly institute a national pharmacare program. I say supposedly because that is not what the bill does. Let us speak the truth. It is a bill mainly designed to playing politics, to the benefit of who knows who because by all accounts, the NDP is dropping in the polls.
What we are seeing today is a partial implementation of this system. The Liberal government, together with the NDP, is focusing on diabetes medication and contraceptives. What we are seeing today is a bit what the Conservatives have also been trying to do for a while now in this Parliament, to introduce American-style politics here in Canada's Parliament. We know that in the United States, in some states, the right-wing parties, the right-wing Republicans are attacking a woman's right to bodily autonomy. The Liberals are very afraid of the Conservatives, often with reason, because we know that there are a lot of people in the Conservative caucus who think that women do not have the right to control their own bodies. Essentially, the pharmacare plan is being used to Americanize Canadian politics.
Now, what this bill does is say that a national pharmacare program is needed. I want to point out that we are talking here about a federal national program, because we know that Quebec is a nation. The government is imposing a format. It is called first dollar coverage, which means that an individual must be insured and must have access to medication without having to spend a single penny. I understand that it would be ideal if many insurance plans, depending on the nature of the risk, were to say that, when a person is sick, they are not responsible for their situation. They did not do anything in particular to get sick, they are just unlucky and they should be insured and not have to spend a single penny. Society will be responsible for providing full insurance coverage.
However, Quebec already has an insurance program, a mixed insurance system. It is true that people have to pay a little. For example, for the public plan, when a person does not have a workplace plan or a private plan, they pay from $0 to $700 and change per year per person, depending on income. The contribution is geared to income. Most people have a plan through their employer that is negotiated as part of their collective agreement, so it is true that, in some cases, people pay a deductible for medication. They pay a certain amount, which is often very low, but everyone in Quebec is insured and the system already exists.
The money that is going to be used to meddle in Quebec's affairs in an area where the federal government is notoriously incompetent, namely health care, should be paid out to Quebec so that we can improve the system that already exists and help it evolve. There is a list of 8,000 drugs that are covered in Quebec. That seems to have piqued people's interest. The federal government knows it is going to be very expensive, so it is buying time. The Liberals know very well that this completely universal plan, where everything is covered, will never come to fruition before the Conservatives come to power. This plan deals with two health conditions. Do people realize how huge a gap there is between reality and rhetoric and how we could have taken this money and sent it to Quebec so that these funds could be managed based on Quebec's priorities?
Some of the debates we had were disgusting in many ways. We, in the Bloc, were told that by opposing Bill C‑64, we were opposing the well-being of the people in our own ridings, and that the only possible way to show concern for people's health, supposedly, was to support a bill that will not properly establish a universal pharmacare system for Quebeckers. That is going to be addressed through questions, if the Liberals ask any. They will tell us that we are against this or that, that we are against people's health, but that is absolutely untrue. We are in favour of insurance, but Quebec is ahead of the game, and we cannot totally upend the Quebec system just because at some point, 25 years down the road, the federal government and the NDP decided to wake up one Tuesday morning. We cannot do that.
One of the reasons the NDP included this kind of program in its coalition agreement with the Liberals, and one of the reasons the only NDP member from Quebec, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, is fighting tooth and nail for Bill C‑64, is supposedly because the major unions support it. It is a delicate situation.
It is true that the cost of drugs has increased, as has the cost of health care services in general, as well as all health technologies. As a result, the cost of private group insurance has gone up. In many workplaces, employer and employee contributions have increased over the past few years. This can put pressure on people's ability to pay. This can put pressure on collective bargaining to get higher wages to deal with the cost of living. We recognize that. We know that is important.
The reason the unions might be united in supporting this federal legislation is not because Ottawa is capable, it is not because Ottawa is good, it is not because Ottawa is competent, it is because the money is in Ottawa; it is because there is a fundamental fiscal imbalance; it is because there are more revenues in Ottawa than the weight of responsibility on the federal government; it is because the provinces need money. The federal government is so determined not to transfer money unconditionally to the provinces that many people have at some point lost confidence in one day having a federal government that will act responsibly and transfer money unconditionally. At some point, the unions decided that they will support the minimum. They will support what they think is feasible in a context where the federal government's lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions and its contempt for Quebec have been institutionalized for decades. That is what is happening.
The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is grandstanding and saying that he has the support of the unions. The message that he should be sending to the unions is this. He should tell the unions that, with Ottawa running this program, they will get less value for their money. There will be fewer drugs and less coverage. The system will not be as effective. The government will be creating a redundant system. In the end, the workers are the ones who will pay. This measure is extremely anti-union.
The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie should have acted more responsibly. He should have explained to the unions that we need to stand together and look to Quebec to get the transfers with no strings attached because Quebec is prepared to improve its system. That is what should be done.
I served on the Standing Committee on Health for several months. The ability to spend, the ability to put a knife to the provinces' throats, to make them accept conditions in exchange for money is in the NDP's DNA. I spent enough time in committee to know that.
The Bloc Québécois proposed a completely reasonable amendment. It asked for the right for Quebec to opt out with full compensation because Quebec already has all the necessary infrastructure. Quebec already has a system. Quebec is prepared to improve its system. It needs that money to continue this social development, which, as with day cares, means that, today, Quebec has a social policy—
1343 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:41:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have a problem here in Ottawa. Governments, particularly Liberal governments, think they know more than the provinces in fields where they are completely incompetent.
However, the NDP is breaking records. It is even worse. Not so long ago, the leader of the NPD wrote to Quebec's health minister asking for a meeting so he could teach him about the benefits of a pharmacare system. He did that even though Quebec has a system where everyone has been insured since 1996.
I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks of this kind of attitude in Ottawa. How does the NDP's centralizing and equally incompetent attitude compound the already deep wrongs of Liberal governments?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 11:56:52 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to respond to the first part of my colleague's question, we favour universal health care and pharmacare, but just as the measure involving the GST, we want it to be done efficiently. For that to happen, the money must go to Quebec City. We must not sell ourselves short. Unfortunately, that is what some people do occasionally.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer said so himself on the air. However, I would point out that these are pseudo-journalists. That is obviously what happens when there are facts. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said so. The Conservatives cherry-pick from all sorts of reports in an effort to doctor all sorts of things. They are betting on the fact that the average person will not spend their entire day studying the motion.
We, on the other hand, have a responsibility as parliamentarians. We must debate ideas and policies. We can propose different solutions to the problems, but ever since they changed leaders, the members of that party seem to think that the earth is flat. This saddens me, and I hope that they change course.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 11:55:04 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is part of the nonsense that the leader of the official opposition told us today. He told us that if we were against the oil industry and against the development of the domestic oil industry, we were for foreign regimes, including Saudi Arabia, a socialist country. He told us this. We can tell that this is a very serious man.
As for the carbon tax, it will happen and here is why: Beginning in 2035 or 2040, if we ourselves do not tax carbon, the European Union and most of our major trade partners will do so at the borders. There are adjustment mechanisms at the borders.
According to the Conservative leader, more oil should be produced here so we can buy our own oil, but he wants to develop policies that will see Canadians, in the years to come, pad foreign countries' pockets with carbon taxes, meaning that Canadians will pick up the tab.
This is the type of chronic incoherence the leader of the official opposition is known for.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 11:53:08 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit fed up with some Conservatives who rise and think that since they grew up on a farm, they can say anything they want and get away with it. Me, I grew up 1,000 kilometres north of Montreal, in the Far North. To go to the hardware store, I had to travel 200 kilometres to Val-d'Or. I know what life in the regions is like. I know that the dairy producers in my riding work so hard they probably will not take a vacation this summer.
Our identity is always under attack, as if we were elitists. Just now my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets literally told the House which car the member for Kingston and the Islands drives, while Conservative members— we could name them — travel here by private jet and a Quebec member pulls up in a Cadillac. Members cannot say whatever they want just because they claim they grew up on a farm.
In reality, the measure the Conservatives are proposing is inefficient, costly and of little help to people. Its purpose is to manufacture a scandal in the fall. If the aim is for people to have more money, we must develop green technologies, engage in the economy of tomorrow and stop living in the 19th century.
223 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 11:41:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their presence. If I may, I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière.
Earlier, in his speech, the leader of the official opposition quoted René Lévesque, who said, “Beware of those who say they love the people but hate everything the people love”. Obviously, it is hard not to seize on this expression. It is hard not to reflect on it. Indeed, people like the truth. People like facts. People like political leaders who have had a real job. We are talking about people, like the member for Jonquière, who did not arrive here at 22 years of age. The member for Jonquière had real jobs. Quebeckers like people who do not insult their intelligence, who appeal to their intelligence.
Quebeckers and the people do not like those who hide from debates, people like the leader of the official opposition who refuse to debate. Quebeckers and the people do not like people who want to shut down local media and defund the CBC in the regions. People do not like that. People do not like official opposition leaders who, for years, hid the fact that they spoke French in order to be more popular in their agricultural riding in Ontario. Quebeckers and the people do not like that. People do not like it either when politicians move stupid motions. That brings us to the agenda. Obviously, the adjective applies to the motion.
I think this is the 42nd speech I have heard about the carbon tax. I am at the point where I start the clock and wait 10 minutes. That is what I usually do when the Conservatives are talking. This time, the Conservatives are trying to reinvent the wheel, talking about a break over the summer. When one likes what the people like, summer vacation is more important than Christmas vacation or Easter vacation. That is what love for the people looks like to the Conservatives.
They are reinventing the wheel and, every time they do, it gets more and more square. We have another example right here. They found another way of undermining the tax on pollution, which all of our economic partners have. It is once again a way of trying to convince people that fighting climate change is not in their best interest. Above all, it is a populist, ineffective approach that goes against the most basic Conservative values. They actually think people will believe that the Conservative Party cares about the purchasing power of middle-class and poor Canadians.
First of all, there has been inflation in Canada over the last two and a half years, just as there has been in the other G7 and G20 countries. A number of ad hoc measures were taken to support those most affected by inflation and the increase in the cost of living. The Conservatives voted against them consistently. All of a sudden, they feel the need to help people go camping. That is exactly what is happening.
For example, we wanted to help taxi and truck drivers facing higher fuel prices after they had already signed contracts and made commitments. These are people who burn fuel. We can agree that it is in the Conservatives' DNA to want to help them, but they opposed that measure. We wanted to increase the GST credit. The GST credit is a cheque sent to the least fortunate Canadians so that they can buy groceries. The Conservatives said that the measure was inflationist, and they blew off the poorest people in Canada.
All of a sudden, we should be helping Conservatives by removing a tax, which would be extremely expensive. I will come back to that later. All of a sudden, the Conservatives are concerned about people. The member for Shefford is working hard to increase OAS and abolish the two classes of seniors. Supposedly, the Conservatives are against anything that costs a penny, but, when it comes time to put forward a stupid motion, they are concerned about what the people like. It is a real dog and pony show.
The people care about health transfers. The people care about wait times. The people in the regions care about access to a family doctor. For them to get these things, we need unconditional transfers. All the Conservatives will say is that they will cut funding, so, yes, we need to beware of those who say they love the people and then spit on them. We especially need to beware of those who say they love Quebec and then spit on it.
Now, I want to talk about student grants. We believe in research and science. Under the Harper government, we had a science and technology minister who was a creationist. We hope for better days ahead. For 20 years now, students have been leaving Canada because there is not enough funding for research. Not only did the Conservatives refuse to help these young people get through the period of their careers when they are most affected by the cost of living, but they also submitted a dissenting opinion against the proposal by our colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on this subject. All of a sudden, these people have the nerve to quote René Lévesque. That is what I call the art of failing to grasp what they are reading.
Now they are saying that, if they form government, they will save a penny for every penny spent. Yesterday, during question period, the Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister that every penny spent was an inflationary expense. Lifting this tax would be an expenditure of hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, but that does not bother them. What they propose is equivalent to writing people cheques. It is a tax expenditure. It is just less obvious. Suddenly, tax expenditures are okay. This party runs on slogans. What is its slogan? Is it, “Axe the homes”? I cannot recall.
A member is answering. I am pleased to see at least one Conservative member is listening to me. I take that as a compliment.
Suddenly, these expenditures are no longer inflationary.
Then there is the issue of red tape. They want to cut the red tape, omitting that housing transfers must go to Quebec. The federal government cannot deal directly with municipalities. There is the Conservative leader's housing bonus and penalty program, supported by his Quebec cronies, who understand almost nothing of how this works in the province, even though some of them have sat as MNAs or been chiefs of staff in Quebec. They have no consideration for people.
The GST cannot be lifted willy-nilly. It must be understood that it is part of a value-added tax system. A business that sells a product collects the GST and remits it to the government. When a business buys goods and services that it uses to create others, it requests a GST tax credit. It is a chain. It is an effective tax in that creates little distortion, less distortion and economic damage than other taxes, but it is a tax that is levied in developed countries and is burdensome to administer.
It is a chain, a process. The Conservatives want to lift this tax for four months. That means that every accountant of every small business in Canada, from coast to coast to coast, will get a holiday. I am not sure whose camping trip they want to pay for, but it will certainly not be our small business owners, whose lives will suddenly get a lot more complicated. Sending cheques would be easier. However, for purely ideological reasons, they do not want to do this. They do not want any programs, and they do not want to help people. All they can say, again and again, is, “Axe the tax”.
Why is this? It is because they have absolutely no substance. They are showing us today that they do not even have a basic grasp of how the business tax system works.
He may be full of ambition, but let me conclude by saying this: The leader of the official opposition does not give a fig about people's vacations. That is the least of his worries. He does not care one whit whether people can go camping. He does not care one whit about getting rid of the tax. What he wants is a summer tax break so that he can have the pleasure of becoming a hatemonger again in the fall when the tax is reinstated. That is what he wants to do. It is pure electioneering. What he wants to do is say that we are going to enjoy a break from paying taxes and, when we come back in September, when the tax is reinstated—at his request—he is going to rise and harass people all fall because the tax was reinstated. Another false scandal will be created with this, but his proposal will have added management costs to every business in Canada.
It is irresponsible, because the main thing the official opposition leader is doing is fostering detestation, hate and the loss of confidence in the institutions that we vow to leave because we are separatists, but that we respect because we are democrats. I think that these people, their sloppiness aside, should be deeply ashamed of themselves today.
1587 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 4:57:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the problem goes deeper than that. When a party comes to power in Ottawa, it has few responsibilities while running a modern state but very deep pockets. Generally speaking, Conservative governments start abusing Ottawa's spending power when they take office. In this case, the Conservatives jumped the gun a bit by saying that they would simply be infringing on the jurisdictions of cities, such as Quebec City. A condition is a condition, whether it comes with a penalty or a reward.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 4:55:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight one thing. There may be heated debates, and that is perfectly fine, but a modicum of decorum must be maintained in the House.
I want to point out that, throughout my speech, I was utterly incapable of hearing myself. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable showed a lack of respect, consideration and decorum. I think that should be noted.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 4:54:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable asks me how I am able to live with a so-called lie. Facts have never been the Conservatives' strong suit, so that is pretty funny.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Jean-Denis Garon: Mr. Speaker, you can call the member to order. I know he has discipline issues. Sometimes those issues can be corrected, and there is no age limit.
The Conservatives say that they voted against Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation because they first needed to see that the government was infringing on Quebec's jurisdictions, meddling in municipal affairs, violating Quebec laws and imposing conditions directly on municipalities. He was the mayor of a city. I want to welcome him to the federal scene. If he likes trampling all over the jurisdictions of municipalities and the Quebec government, he will be fine here. He will like it here.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 4:52:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a large majority of Quebeckers think it is important for governments to respect their areas of jurisdiction. That is the case in my riding. People come to see me. They are deeply insulted because not only is the federal government meddling in Quebec's affairs, but it is making a mess. People have to get out their credit card, go to the CRA portal and wait, without necessarily knowing how much they are going to get back. That was the case for a long time.
The Liberals fuel this perverse argument that if we want Quebec to set up programs that reflect Quebeckers, it means we are working against our people, against the health of our people, against the well-being of our people. The fact the the member for Winnipeg North is even asking this question discredits his intellect.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 4:41:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what do we have to do to live to 120?
We mind our own business. Generally, that is a good technique for being well liked, for getting people's respect and for not getting into trouble. It is rather surprising to see that Canada has been around for 157 years while systematically not minding its business. That is a record.
Essentially, if we put it in good French for Quebeckers to understand, today's motion calls on the government to mind its own damn business. We have to use the same crass, sloppy tone as the Prime Minister in drafting the motion.
The motion calls on the House to remind the Prime Minister that, despite his claims, it is not true that people do not care which level of government is responsible for what. It is his father's Constitution. It is a family quarrel. It is sad that it has come to this, because while we are constantly fighting over jurisdictions—and let us face it, Quebec is right, because the Constitution is very clear—there are people who are suffering, who do not have health care and who do not have housing. While these people are suffering, we are bickering over dental insurance, health transfers and the conditions that will or will not be attached. There are human consequences to this.
With this motion, we are conveying a message from all governments in Quebec, going back as long as there has been a social policy in Quebec. I would actually like to quote some premiers who were by no means separatists. The member for Winnipeg North talked a lot about our separatist attitudes, but it is not merely an attitude. It is at the core of who we are.
I have a quote from a premier who said, “the provinces are then put in a position where no longer as legislators they decide as a matter of provincial policy that this is the type of social service their people require or desire, but rather their status is reduced to the mere right to decide whether or not they will participate in a programme that already has been decided at the federal level and which is now offered to them on a cost-sharing basis....in our opinion, shared cost programmes force a measure of uniformity that is beyond the dictates of desirability.”
That was said by Ernest Manning, who served as the premier of Alberta from 1943 to 1968.
In 1982, René Lévesque said that, in order to ensure the development of our society, the amending formula for the Canadian Constitution should recognize a general veto power or the right to opt out with full financial compensation in every other case.
This continued with the Johnson government and the Charest government. In fact, all governments have asked for balanced federal spending power and the right to opt out with full financial compensation. This includes governments under which several of the current members served, including the member for Bourassa, now a Liberal MP in the federal government. He sat behind Jean Charest and made this demand, as did the now-famous member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis and the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who served under Jean Charest. Several others, including the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who was part of Action démocratique du Québec and was also in the “yes” camp in 1995, have also made this demand. At one time or another, Quebec members were in favour of this.
I am delighted to see that the Conservatives are going to support our motion. They took a few nights to think it over, after voting against our amendment to the amendment to the budget, which called for exactly the same thing as this motion. Sometimes consistency must be learned.
Spending power has become a disease in Ottawa. We are talking about fiscal imbalance. At the time of Confederation, the federal government's responsibilities were very limited. There was no social policy and no welfare state. What evolved into today's welfare state, and what became social policy, health, education and assistance for the less fortunate, are things that the federal government handed over to the provinces because it was not interested. Religious orders took care of that. Since Protestants lived in Upper Canada, in Ontario, and Catholics lived in Quebec, the government decided to leave religious matters to the provinces.
Over time, these responsibilities have become critical components of the modern state in terms of quality of life, longevity, productivity, social and industrial policy, and more.
Unfortunately, the Constitution did not set out that the revenues that would become the most significant for a government would be shared equally between Quebec and Ottawa, which means that today, the provinces are drowning in responsibilities while the money is in Ottawa. This was never the intention. Normally, if the spirit of the Constitution had been respected, the government would have thought that if it was going to take tax points, tax bases, the ability to tax, then it should send it to the provinces so that they can be autonomous and the spirit of the Constitution would thus be respected.
However, because of a flaw in the Constitution, something called spending power has developed, the spending power under which Ottawa assumes the right to withhold money, attach conditions and literally put a gun to the provinces' heads, telling them that they will not get the money if they do not do what the federal government wants, even though Ottawa has absolutely no right to legislate in areas such as health, education, higher education, scholarships and so on. This is a serious problem.
This is a major problem first of all for transparency, because when Ottawa decides to cut transfers and funds, the public essentially experiences service cuts. From a democratic standpoint, people do not always know who to blame. In the 1990s, Quebec had to reverse course on ambulatory care and home care after Ottawa made budget cuts. People thought the Quebec government was responsible. Jean Chrétien admitted that balancing the budget was easy for him because he could simply make cuts and no one would be the wiser.
This is a democratic problem. This is a policy consistency problem, because each province has its own preferences. Guess what? That is a good thing. Each of them learns from the others. Ottawa boasts about borrowing Quebec's model and applying it to everyone else. So kind of Quebec, they say. When that happens, how does innovation move forward in other areas? How are the provinces supposed to innovate and get ideas from one another in upcoming areas of innovation? It is impossible.
We are also vulnerable to cuts. That is a message to the Conservatives because there is a big chance they will be in power soon. They are as excited as kids on Christmas. They know it is coming. They tell us that they respect provincial jurisdictions. The Harper government did this. They respected provincial jurisdictions.
Essentially what they are saying is that they are going to respect provincial jurisdictions so much that they will not pay the provinces another penny, that they will make cuts to the transfers, that they will not index them. Then, since the Liberals generated a massive debt by sticking their noses in the provinces' business, they are going to pay down the debt and the provinces will have to do what they can on health. The Conservatives need to understand that if they are in power some day, they will have to live with the problems caused by the Liberals and they will have to index the health transfers. This just shows that Quebec is vulnerable to a change in government in Ottawa.
It is also a denial of democracy. This spending power has become a disease that is more serious than we suspect. I sat on the Standing Committee on Health for several months. We have reached a point where, when we say that Quebec's jurisdictions must be respected, we are told that it is no big deal, that spending power lets us do whatever we want. I heard my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River and my NDP colleagues say so.
Physicians' federations are coming to Ottawa one after the other to ask for money, knowing that spending power will trample over the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. For example, and this applies to a lot of other areas too, each federation asks for its own small program with its own small fund without realizing that, ultimately, the problem is systemic. The problem is that transfers need to be paid to Quebec with no strings attached in order for all needs to be met.
The spending power, the fiscal imbalance, makes Quebec vulnerable, makes our constituents vulnerable. More than that, it absolutely undermines Quebec's decision-making capacity. It forces Quebec to negotiate because the money is in Ottawa and then Ottawa will brag about it. Earlier my Liberal colleague spent 10 minutes telling us what she had negotiated with Quebec. It should not have been up for negotiation. The money should have gone directly to Quebec City.
Forcing a partner to negotiate is not a negotiation. It is what we call holding Quebec hostage. If the other provinces want that to happen, that is their business, but when the federal government creates a new program in the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, it is only natural that there be a bit of respect for Quebec, for the position of all its governments in history and that it be offered the right to opt out with full financial compensation.
1636 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the name of Luc Sabourin has resonated several times in the House. He is synonymous with integrity, courage and humanity.
Luc saw his professional life and his health destroyed after choosing to do the right thing: blowing the whistle on wrongdoing in the federal government. Alas, rather the punish the guilty, the system punished him, as it did so many others. This is a disgrace that should scandalize the House.
For a year now, in support of my Bill C‑290, Luc delivered powerful testimony to better protect whistle-blowers. A few days ago, he won the Centre for Free Expression's prestigious Peter Bryce Prize. Every year, this honour is bestowed upon a person who served the greater good by courageously speaking up about wrongdoing or abuses of the public and taxpayers' trust.
I call on the House to join me in congratulating Luc and in honouring whistle-blowers. We will continue to fight for these issues.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 9:20:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be studying a bill on pharmacare, yet we have addressed every issue under the sun since the evening began. We even debated abortion, in terms of who is for it or against it.
I keep asking the same question over and over, but I get no answer from the Conservatives. If it ever comes to power some day, will the Conservative Party support Quebec's right to opt out with full financial compensation when Ottawa creates programs in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, yes or no?
Yes or no, do the Conservatives support the right to opt out with full financial compensation?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:59:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle just asked my colleague who just spoke a question saying that they do not live in the same world. The member for Châteauguay—Lacolle also lives in a world where the National Assembly unanimously voted for a first resolution, then a second, and then a third.
For years, we have been calling for Quebec to have the right to opt out with full financial compensation when Ottawa institutes new spending programs in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. She supposedly lives in that world, but it does not seem like it because across the way, in their alternative world, the federal government is supposed to be able to manage a hospital, which it has never been able to do properly.
I have the following question for my Conservative colleague. Perhaps the Conservatives will form the government some day; it is hard to say. When that happens, will they agree with the concept and principle of a right to opt out with full financial compensation for Quebec when the federal government institutes programs in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec?
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:49:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his arrogant comments that I must say were also ignorant, the member for Winnipeg North said that Ottawa supposedly has powers over health care. He cited the Canada Health Act, which is a manifestation of the federal government's spending power, which Ottawa, which has more revenue than it needs for its own responsibilities, is using to give itself the right to impose conditions on Quebec in Quebec's own jurisdictions.
I would like my colleague to explain whether this is a manifestation of the fact that Ottawa takes in more revenue than it needs to deal with its own responsibilities. I would also like him to tell me, once and for all, why this justifies Quebec having a right to opt out with full financial compensation for programs under Quebec's jurisdiction.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
