SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Bloc Québécois
  • Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques
  • Quebec
  • Voting Attendance: 67%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $115,154.34

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 326 - Jun/6/24
Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)
Mr. Speaker, the perfect is the enemy of the good. This saying may well apply to the current situation and to Bill C‑277, an act to establish a national strategy on brain injuries, which I have the opportunity to talk to members of the House about today. I would like to thank my colleague for his hard work to bring this proposal before us today. Unfortunately, as with all previous national strategies, it is nothing but smoke and mirrors to make people believe that the government is doing something for them. At the end of the day, it is like putting a band-aid on a wooden leg. It serves no purpose. We have talked about national strategies for diabetes, firefighting cancers and eye health; now we are talking about a brain injury strategy. The Bloc Québécois wants to make it clear that it is uncomfortable with these national strategies. For one thing, they tend to disregard the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. One thing the bill would do is identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to brain injury prevention and treatment and the rehabilitation and recovery of persons living with a brain injury. Yes, it is well intentioned. Despite my colleague's goodwill, I repeat that professional associations and the training of health professionals are not under federal jurisdiction. Brain injuries in particular are treated by hospitals, which are under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Therefore, the federal government cannot identify anything, but it can certainly help identify needs and participate in the collective effort to address the concussion epidemic. The fact is that Quebec has developed its own organizational model to address brain injuries, known as the trauma care continuum. It has been around since 1987, which is nothing to sneeze at. We already have 37 years of expertise in this area. In addition, Quebec has its action plan for the prevention and management of concussions in sports and recreational activities. The bill also endeavours to promote awareness and education with particular emphasis on improving public understanding and protecting the rights of persons living with a brain injury. For an awareness campaign to be effective, it must be adapted to its context. Given that the Quebec government provides the services and resources, it is in the best position to run those campaigns. In fact, there are many websites and brochures available to the public that are designed to prevent or recognize the symptoms of brain injuries. Our second concern with this bill is that, rather than offering concrete solutions to help people who are truly suffering, it serves more as a communication tool. In fact, the only thing it proposes is to have public servants produce a report the following year, with recommendations that are often unenforceable. If this bill had more teeth, it would propose measures that would have an immediate impact rather than a document that proposes measures after the fact. Finally, the Bloc Québécois believes that the bill ignores all the work that Quebec, the provinces, health professionals, researchers, organizations and so many others are doing on brain injury. Its objective is to make the federal government the puppet master, when Quebec has already had its own expertise for more than 30 years, as well as a unique approach to treating traumatic injuries, which include brain injuries. If the member wants to win the support of all parties for his bill, as he said he did, we urge him to recognize the efforts made by health care networks to help fight the effects of brain injury. We suggest that he avoid using his leader's sanctimonious and paternalistic tone, as he did on pharmacare, because Quebec did not wait for a national strategy to take action on that front. It is clear that this bill does nothing for people with brain injuries and serves only to ease our consciences. Concrete action is sorely lacking. That said, the Bloc Québécois will still vote in favour of the bill, provided that the federal government co-operates with Quebec and the provinces and does not impose another centralizing program that encroaches on our autonomy and sweeps aside our hard-earned expertise. It is good to set the record straight and force the federal government to fulfill its obligations. It has a duty to ensure that brain injuries are prevented wherever it can, both as an employer and as a contributor to a number of sports organizations and events. It is also the federal government's duty, through the three research councils, to fund scientific research. It is important to remember that, because it is so critical to support those who work in the universities and hospitals on treating brain injury, and the rehabilitation and recovery of individuals living with a brain injury and many others. As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, I can only encourage the government to increase and support on an ongoing basis its participation in funding research. For 20 years it has under-funded scientific research compared to the other G7 countries and we are now suffering the consequences. Canada is the only G7 country that is seeing a decline in the retention of researchers because they are drawn to other countries where science is better supported financially and better conditions are offered. I also want to remind the House that Canada is the only G7 country that was unable to produce its own COVID‑19 vaccine. These are two tangible examples that demonstrate that this chronic under-funding has adverse effects. If the federal government wants to use tax tools to help families deal with additional costs or loss of income resulting from brain injuries, the Bloc Québécois will encourage it. In short, this and future governments can take up many non-invasive and non-intrusive responsibilities without descending once again into interference. To sum up, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. However, it urges the federal government to take a cautious approach to any future recommendations made by officials examining this matter. As long as the federal government is willing to collaborate, rather than set conditions, we will gladly support the initiative. If it crosses a red line, we will be there to set things right. Although the federal parties might be tempted to centralize power, the Bloc Québécois will continue to defend our areas of expertise and our vision of how things should be done. We will remain vigilant, we will show no tolerance for any abuse or attempted interference, and we will defend against any encroachment on Quebec's powers. Finally, I will conclude by saying that we would be happy to consider any tangible, meaningful contributions that would really help people with brain injuries. In the meantime, we will settle for this strategy. This bill alone will not be enough to support these people. Yes, it is good to encourage consultation, but we believe that access to health care is the real problem. Quebec needs more resources in order to provide its health professionals with better working conditions, to keep them in the public system and to improve access for patients. The federal government has health care commitments that it is not fulfilling. It was supposed to pay 50% of health care costs in Quebec and the other provinces, but it currently covers only about 22%. If my colleague really wants to help our constituents with health care, he should push the government, which his party is propping up, to transfer the money owed to support the health of Quebeckers. The consequences of underfunding health care make it difficult to maintain effective, high-quality service. I see the devastating effects of that in my riding. For example, people have a hard time accessing specialized treatment, which is concentrated in urban centres several hours' drive away from my constituents. Add to that the wait times for an appointment with a health care professional and the working conditions that we can offer those professionals. We cannot accept this. It is vital that Ottawa honour its commitments so that everyone can have decent access to health care.
1392 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 79 - Jun/1/22
Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)
  • Jun/1/22 6:30:11 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I thank him for it and I would like to ask him a simple question. He mentioned the possibility of stepping in proactively to prevent certain groups of individuals from committing crimes or to better support certain communities so that fewer crimes are committed by certain people. I would like my colleague to explain how it would be possible to act proactively and limit the crimes committed by certain individuals, rather than handing down reduced sentences.
86 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border