Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
Since I am the health care critic, it will not surprise anyone that my response to the throne speech is mainly about health and the fate of seniors under the current government. I will let my colleague, the agriculture critic, share his concerns on that topic. However, since agriculture is one of the main industries in my riding, I would like to acknowledge all of the farmers in my riding and tell them how proud I am to represent farmers, who never compromise on the quality of their produce and never will.
The Bloc Québécois had four conditions. Obviously, we made several proposals. We made our position clear. Before we would vote in favour of the throne speech, four conditions had to be met: an increase in health care transfers to cover 35% of Quebec’s costs; an increase of $110 a month to old age security; full compensation for supply-managed farmers to make up for the loopholes in the trade agreements with the United States, Europe and the Pacific nations, which have been allowed to stand by successive governments, Conservative and Liberal alike; and respect for areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
None of these conditions were met, announced or even touched upon in the throne speech. It should therefore come as no surprise that I will be voting against the throne speech, which I, along with other observers, see as a political diversion intended to draw attention away from the Liberal Party's inherent problems: ethical problems, not genetic problems, and the WE scandal. A number of pundits have commented on the Prime Minister’s address to the nation, saying that it was merely a partisan replay of the throne speech.
This is the same government that keeps calling upon our spirit of collaboration in these difficult times. It is true that the world is going through one of the worst health crises ever. The Liberal Party’s next slogan should be, “Do what I say, not what I do.” It is turning a deaf ear to a broad consensus in Quebec and even, in some respects, across Canada. I will get back to that. Once again, with the throne speech, the government defied a broad Quebec consensus and the unanimous will of every party in the National Assembly. That is something. It also ignored the united front presented by Quebec and the provinces with regard to health transfers, Quebec’s seniors’ rights associations, the FADOQ networks and the AQDR. That is really something.
The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons says that he is tired of hearing the Bloc Québécois advocate for this broad consensus and unanimous demand from Quebeckers. It is my job to speak for Quebeckers in the House, because he is not doing so, despite being from Quebec. He is turning a deaf ear, as, I would imagine, are many of the Liberal members from Quebec. Who will stand up in the House to defend Quebec? The Bloc Québécois. That is why I was elected.
We are in the middle of a serious public health crisis, and public health is a matter of prevention.
Let us revisit that great idea of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, that of punting the federal government’s deficit into the provinces’ backyards. Some people found that brilliant. Jean Chrétien travelled around the world saying that the best part of this policy was that he was making cuts, but citizens were protesting in front of Quebec’s National Assembly rather than the Parliament in Ottawa.
So far, there have been 25 years of cuts. Quebec has tried its best to do more with less. It has shaken up structures; it has tried. However, in the case of public health and prevention, when the province is having a hard time caring for patients, when it has to send people abroad for cancer treatments, cuts have to be made somewhere.
At the Standing Committee on Health, which was trying to find solutions and understand what is happening with COVID-19, every expert witness said that we needed to learn something from the pandemic. One of the first lessons is that no one in Canada was prepared to face this health crisis. We will be able to identify the problems later in a report to be prepared by the Committee.
According to those experts, the reason why no one was prepared is the chronic underfunding of the health care sector, which laid bare the shortcomings and weak links in the system when unforeseen events of this scope occur. Year after year, transfer payments have been systematically cut.
The Conservative Party is not in a position to lecture anyone, since Stephen Harper decided on an escalator of 3%. When they were the opposition, the Liberals said that it should be 6%. It is a funny thing. Now that the Liberals have been in government for five years, they are no longer talking about increasing the escalator to 6%.
I am eager to learn what the Conservatives’ position is on the provincial united front. I have been asking the question since the beginning of the debate, but I have not gotten a clear answer. It seems they want the escalator to be predictable, but, apart from that, no one is saying much. The escalator of 3% was predictable, but still inadequate.
Do we agree there is a need to catch up? The federal government’s share of health care is almost 18%, or about 22 cents on the dollar. If nothing changes in the coming years, we will be talking about 18 cents on the dollar.
The provinces and Quebec are calling for 35 cents on the dollar, which means $28 billion more. Right now, the provinces as a whole spend $188 billion a year, compared with the federal government's outlay of $42 billion a year.
During a pandemic, we need to make sustainable and structural investments, not one-off payments. We need structural investments that will enable us to build a future and allow the system to get back on its feet. That is why it is so important to invest wisely in health care.
That is also why our seniors need a decent income. Worrying about making ends meet makes people sick. I am talking about all seniors, starting at age 65. Health issues crop up between the ages of 65 and 75, not just after age 75. We need to ensure that our seniors are financially stable. That is essentially prevention, because, at the end of the day, health care spending is much lower when people are healthy, when they do not have to worry about their income and when they live above, and not below, the poverty line.
For all of these reasons, I cannot vote in favour of the throne speech. I do not understand why the government continues to turn a deaf ear to Canadians.
What does it want? Does it want Quebec to beg? This is our money. The government needs to give us our money.