Debates of Sept. 28th, 2022

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if indigenous communities are embracing this piece of legislation and if she is comfortable that it is a good way to advance reconciliation.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her support in the work we are doing around the TRC calls to action.

First of all, indigenous people have been part of this process, but more than that, they have led this process. It is because of their insight, views, perspectives, hard work and experiences that we stand here today presenting this legislation before the House of Commons, and we are doing so with their support.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I have had the opportunity to work together on a number of different issues in committee and elsewhere, and I appreciate the approach she brings to this place.

The parliamentary secretary alluded to the final report from the interim board for the national council for reconciliation quite a bit. Earlier in this debate, I asked a member of the government why, considering that the report was completed by June 12, 2018, it has taken so long for the government to get to the point today where we are finally debating Bill C-29.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary is able to provide some greater input as to why the government did not act on this sooner, especially considering that we clearly have quite widespread support for this bill in the House today.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, yes, I have had opportunities to work with my colleague on a number of committees, and I know he is a hard worker and strong supporter of indigenous rights in Canada.

In terms of the timeline from the spring 2018 report to the legislation today, I want to remind members that we went through two years of COVID, which really slowed down a lot of the work that was being done by the committee itself regarding consultation with indigenous peoples, communities and governments across Canada. That process took a period of time. A lot of it was done virtually, but a lot was done face to face as well. To ensure there was ample time for all indigenous peoples and communities to have the input they wanted in this legislation, that was the time period required.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. In this very fractious House, I noticed, and wanted to make sure she said it because I could be wrong, that the parliamentary secretary said something nice about the member for Kenora. I just want to note that it is on the record and I support it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is debate, not a point of order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of representing the Kwantlen First Nation community in the Fort Langley area of my riding. I have met with them frequently, including with residential school survivors. After the announcement of the discovery of unmarked graves in Kamloops, the pain is fresh for them again.

There is some frustration about the lack of action on identifying and dealing with unmarked graves. I realize that is not the point of the discussion today, but this is about calls to action and there is a lack of action on them.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, this is an issue that has touched the hearts of all Canadians. We have 91 ongoing projects right now. There is funding available for other communities, groups and first nations that want to do similar work within their communities and regions. The Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations is working with those community groups and organizations.

If you have some people in your riding looking to be involved in this program, we ask that you come talk to me, the minister or the parliamentary secretary.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that she is to address questions and comments through the Speaker and not directly to members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary will have three minutes for questions and comments the next time this matter is before the House.

It being 6:52 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-237, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House this evening to speak to the bill introduced by my colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.

As we know, we are here in the Parliament of Canada, a parliament where members' work usually revolves around national challenges and co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. Every day or nearly every day, our work reflects the fact that we are fortunate to be part of a family of 10 provinces and three territories that comprise this country.

My colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel has a slightly different vision. He does not see Canadians as members of his family, but rather as neighbours and friends. His bill reflects this reality, and I find it disappointing that this bill is not inclusive and forgets the other regions of Canada. After all, if what he is proposing is good for Quebec, then surely it would also be good for the rest of the regions in Canada.

I personally am convinced that we can hope for the best for our fellow citizens when we all work together and combine the strengths of all the regions of Canada to address the challenges faced by North America as a whole.

Having said that, I understand some of what my colleague is proposing in his bill. This initiative would leave the federal government with no choice but to think carefully, and for purely political reasons, before interfering in any provincial jurisdictions.

I am referring to the arrogance of the Prime Minister who, first of all, still refuses to meet with the provinces to discuss health care funding and, second, is proposing a dental plan without consulting the provinces and without considering that such a program already exists in most provinces.

We on this side of the House cannot understand why the Prime Minister is ignoring Canadians who have sent him a very clear message that they have had enough. We cannot believe that the Prime Minister can be so out of touch with Canadians. We think that delusions of grandeur could be preventing him from seeing the reality all around him.

Considering the challenges facing health care funding, the federal government must do everything in its power to prevent duplication of services and funding. The federal government's revenues are both huge and limited at the same time. Moreover, Canadians already pay enough taxes, even if the Prime Minister does not think so. Millions of Canadians are suffering, but considering what he says and does, he seems convinced that their complaints are exaggerated.

The time for the Prime Minister's insipid speeches is over. It is time to find solutions for health services in Canada. If a province, whether it is Quebec, Alberta or any other province, proposes an idea to provide a health service in a more economical, more innovative way that preserves very good quality of service, the federal government has to show some flexibility and work with the province for the good of the population.

I would like to address another point, the importance of maintaining health care services of the highest quality. We often hear that Canada's health care system is one of the best in the world, but we all know that we can and must improve it. Bill C‑237 mentions programs with comparable objectives, but says nothing about the quality of the service. Quebeckers demand better quality of service and, as citizens of our beautiful province, deserve better service.

I do not understand why, in preparing his bill, the Bloc Québécois member did not include details setting out the importance of maintaining quality. I believe him when he says he wants to defend the priorities of Quebec. This is one of the most important priorities and he has left it out. I do not understand that.

With respect to my colleague's bill, in an April 5, 2022, ruling regarding a point of order raised on March 1, the Speaker of the House expressed the view that Bill C‑237 must be accompanied by a royal recommendation and declined to put the question at third reading without this recommendation.

A royal recommendation is required for any private member's bill that involves spending, which, according to Speaker, is the case for Bill C‑237. If I understand correctly, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel seems to believe that his bill does not entail any new expense. If the member really wants members of Parliament to support his bill, he should put some effort into proving the Speaker of the House wrong.

In closing, I would say to my Bloc colleague that, while the Liberals are trying to persuade MPs to vote against this bill, our ultimate goal is to ensure that all the provinces are well served by the federal government. Duplication and unnecessary spending must cease. Our new Conservative leader will put people, their pensions, their paycheques, their homes and their country first.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-237. The NDP supports some aspects of this bill. However, it is surprising to see the extremely negative impact it would have on the universality of our health care system. I will come back to that in a moment. Considering the bill as a whole and all the detrimental effects it would have on the health care systems in Quebec and Canada, we will be voting against it.

I want to talk about the positive aspects of the bill first. The idea of making budget cuts to health care and health transfers was put forward by the Conservatives. It was irresponsible to make those cuts to the health care system, in our view. The only thing the Conservatives seem to want to do is to keep making cuts to public services. The impact these cuts have had on our health care system is being felt in Quebec, British Columbia and everywhere. That has really hurt our health care system.

There was a change of government in 2015. However, the Liberals continued to make cuts. The two traditional parties, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, do not understand that when we do not invest money in the system, the system suffers.

The NDP absolutely wants that funding restored, and an NDP government would do that immediately. We would ensure that the health care system receives the funding that Canadians across the country deserve.

As we have already said, the tax haven system that the Conservatives created with the help of the Liberals, and that the Liberals have allowed to carry on with the help of the Conservatives, costs us $25 billion a year. The government cannot claim that we do not have the resources required to fund the health care system. All we need is for the Liberals and the Conservatives to reduce their assistance to the banking system. All this does is help the big Canadian banks increase their profits.

Naturally, we agree on that aspect of the funding proposed in the bill.

We also agree with the second aspect, which has to do with the provinces' right to opt out of new federal programs it does not like and obtain financial compensation. That is part of the Sherbrooke Declaration, which the NDP has always stood for. We have been crystal clear about our stance on Quebec's right to opt out of new federal programs for years.

That second aspect of the bill was no doubt inspired by the NDP's work in the House of Commons, so of course we are in favour of it.

Let us now talk about the third aspect, which would have such a negative impact on the health care system that we cannot understand why it would be in a bill. Polls indicate that two-thirds of the people who vote for the Bloc Québécois want a national pharmacare system. They want that universality, but the Bloc's bill would change the five principles that are the foundation of our public health system.

Let us look at the five principles the Bloc wants Quebec to be exempt from even though the vast majority of Quebeckers support these principles. First, the principle of universality. The Bloc Québécois wants to cut that out so it does not apply going forward.

The principle of universality is one of the foundations of our health care system. Everyone agrees that each and every Canadian is entitled to medicare. It seems they want to abolish that principle. I do not know whether it is a misunderstanding or whether the Bloc Québécois wants to privatize our public system.

The second principle that the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish is the comprehensiveness of the system, which means that all medically necessary services are covered by the public system. This is another one of the foundations of our medicare in Quebec and everywhere else, including British Columbia. They want to get rid of this value.

As my colleagues may know, I have lived in Saguenay‑Lac‑Saint‑Jean, in the Eastern Townships, in Montreal and in the Outaouais. In all the years I spent in these various regions of Quebec, I never met anyone who would support the idea of eliminating the comprehensiveness of our public system.

The third principle that the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish is accessibility. It is a basic principle of our Canadian health care system and Quebec's health care system. By wanting to eliminate the accessibility of the system, the Bloc Québécois is once again going against the will of Quebeckers.

The fourth principle that the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish is portability. This is a very important foundation of our health care system. As we have already seen, it means that people can go to British Columbia and have access to that province's public health care system.

Yes, some improvements certainly are needed. It is well known that some provinces, including Quebec, have problems with the reimbursement of fees paid in other provinces. There was a case like this recently in British Columbia. The principle of the portability of health care must not be abolished; it must be improved. This means that Quebec and British Columbia must be forced to pay these fees promptly. This is an extremely important part of our system.

The fifth principle that the Bloc Québécois seems to want to abolish is the public administration of our system. Hospitals and health care plans must be administered by a public non-profit organization. This is also a fundamental value. I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish this principle of public administration of the system.

Of course, there is still room for improvement. We fully support an increase in health transfers. Furthermore, the NDP has always advocated for the provinces' right to opt out with full compensation.

However, we cannot support the idea of eliminating these five principles that are the cornerstones of the Quebec and Canadian public health systems. Those of us on this side of the House do not see that in a positive light. The NDP is a progressive party and, unlike other parties, we do not support the privatization of our public health care system. As we all know, the American health care system is private, and it costs far more than the public system. Tens of millions of Americans are being left behind by their health care system.

We must maintain our public health care system and always protect the five principles on which our health care system is based. The NDP will steadfastly and rigorously uphold these principles.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will give an introduction to set the record straight because I have heard a lot of things this evening, things that are bordering on a lie. I am not sure whether it is a failure to understand or whether it is deliberate, but I am going to set the record straight.

First, I do not know if the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is an unbridled sovereignist or if he is just pandering. He says he wants to defend Quebec's autonomy but that the federal government should put conditions on the health care system. The purpose of Bill C‑237 is not complicated. It is about ensuring that Quebec manages its own health system, without conditions imposed by the federal government.

Second, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby came up with all sorts of unbelievable things. Talk about the bogeyman. I am not sure if he is emulating the Conservative Party or if he really had nothing to say about the bill, but he thinks that the Bloc Québécois wants to privatize Quebec's health care system. That is not it at all. Where did he get that idea? I will explain the bill to him.

This bill is in no way an attempt to withdraw from the universal system. The bill is very simple and states that we want to withdraw from the national objectives of the Canadian health care system because we believe that Quebec is capable of administering and managing its own health care system. We do not need the federal government to tell us what to do, under the pretext that it administers a lot of health care systems in Canada.

The only health care systems that the federal government manages are those of the correctional institutions and National Defence. Aside from that, it is in no position to lecture Quebec. Hospitals in Quebec fly the Quebec flag. Quebec manages its own health care system. The federal government does not manage physicians and knows nothing about that. It is in no position to tell us what to do, what is good or what is not good.

Then, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby tells us that the Bloc Québécois wants to withdraw so that we can privatize the system. Come on. The federal government did not create the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. The federal government did not implement the Quebec Act Respecting Prescription Drug Insurance. The Government of Quebec did all of that.

I will not stand by while the member for New Westminster—Burnaby spouts that foolishness this evening. He just made claims about something he simply does not understand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think our colleague could give his speech without insulting everyone. If he has points to make he can do so in an appropriate manner, in compliance with the rules of the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I believe the hon. member is raising a matter for debate. In private members' business, there are no questions or comments.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques may continue.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

It is indeed a matter for debate, Madam Speaker. Foolishness refers not to the individual but to their arguments. That said, I suppose that, when someone has nothing to say, they can talk about tax havens and point out that they are nowhere to be found in this bill, which focuses on domestic objectives. If the member would like me to go over and explain the bill to him, I would be pleased to do so. However, he should not be saying that the Bloc Québécois wants to privatize the health care system with Bill C‑237. We have heard all sorts of things tonight, but I hope that will stay in the annals of the House of Commons because that is far from being the case. I will get back to my speech because I had prepared one, but when you hear something like that it is hard not to correct the record.

Bill C‑237 addresses a situation that has created friction and tension between the federal and the provincial governments ever since the Constitution Act of 1867 was passed. It is nothing new.

I am talking about respect for the division of powers between the two levels of government. Basically, according to the pact that was made at the time, in 1867, between the two levels of government, each respective area of jurisdiction should be equal and sovereign. This arrangement served to ensure that the priorities of the majority Canadian nation were not imposed on the minority Quebec nation. We are a long way from that today, in 2022.

For issues that directly affect people and the way they organize their society, jurisdiction was directly delegated to the provinces. These include things like health care, social programs, education and culture. For issues that are somewhat removed from the people or the internal organization of their society, the respective areas of jurisdiction were centralized directly under the federal government. This means things like monetary policy, international trade, border defence, and so on.

These terms are protected by the ironclad Constitution and the inviolable division of powers. Quebeckers accepted that agreement, but as I have said before and will say again, members of the federation are supposed to work together, not impose conditions, which is what we are seeing now. The government is using that to make political gains that undermine jurisdiction. It is taking over our child care system and trying to impose conditions on us. We cannot be sure it will transfer that to us. Next is health care. I bet that before too long there will be big federally funded parks all over the place. The government is going to take away all our power over social programs. That is this federal government's current agenda.

That is why we need to take a very close look at the relationship between both levels of government now, 155 years after the original agreement, the Canadian Constitution, came into effect. Inevitably, we will find that, for the past three generations, the federal government has been violating an agreement that goes back to the birth of the federation. I will explain this in a simple two-step process.

First, the federal government uses its taxing power to raise taxes higher than is required to fulfill its own constitutional responsibilities. In doing so, it also prevents Quebec and the provinces from using this tax room. This is called fiscal imbalance.

Second, the federal government uses its surplus profits, which it controls, to spend and create programs in areas under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction. In addition to controlling this money, which is normally intended for different areas and jurisdictions, it goes so far as to impose conditions on the transfer of funds. In concrete terms, this means that the federal government, the Canadian government, uses this practice to decide how Quebec society and the other provinces are set up. It also forces the government of Quebec and the provinces to implement the priorities of Canadians rather than the priorities of Quebeckers in areas under their own jurisdiction.

As I said, it is supposed to be a collaboration, not simply imposing conditions. In this case, Canada's vision and will are being imposed to the detriment of Quebec's will and vision. Quebec never agreed to become Ottawa's subcontractor. Nowadays, it is clear that Ottawa is interfering in areas of jurisdiction. It pays off politically, by the way.

There is unbridled interference going on in areas such as housing, education, family policy, day care services, the environment and taxation. Interference has become the federal government's hallmark.

The federal government has a strong tendency to use its power to spend money and surreptitiously exploit shared jurisdictions. The Bloc Québécois has had enough, which is why it decided to introduce Bill C‑237.

If passed, this bill will give Quebec and the provinces a way to counter this interference, which violates the constitutional agreement on which the country was founded. The original agreement is no longer being respected. Can we get this straightened out? We have no choice. We are being taken for fools. We have no autonomy anymore. We send our money to the federal government, but then it says it will not transfer the money unless we comply with its conditions.

In practical terms, Bill C‑237 makes two amendments. I urge my colleagues to listen carefully, because they have been saying all kinds of things about this bill. First, the bill will amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act between the government and the provinces. This will affect all of the provinces, not just Quebec. It will give all provinces the option of withdrawing from a federal program.

Furthermore, in the spirit of compromise, the government will provide matching funds to the province or Quebec, but only if the objectives of the program in question are comparable to those of the federal program. The program in the province or in Quebec does not have to be identical or even similar. It must be comparable. The funds are to be given unconditionally, without criteria and without any other form of interference.

I see that my time is up. I therefore invite the members to give Quebec and each province the freedom to make their own choices, by themselves and for themselves.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on private member's bill, Bill C-237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act.

As proposed, this bill would do two things. First, it would allow any province to withdraw from federal programs in provincial jurisdiction if comparable programs exist. Second, it would exempt Quebec from the criteria and conditions that must be met in order to receive a full cash contribution through the Canada health transfer.

Before I get into the concerns that the government has with these amendments, let me very quickly provide a little history surrounding the Canada Health Act. The act was passed unanimously in the House of Commons in 1984. It represents a broad consensus among Canadians and their federal, provincial and territorial governments that access to insured health services should be based on medical need and not one's ability to pay. Since then the act has been considered the gold standard of federal spending power being used to set national objectives in the area of provincial jurisdiction. The act, in conjunction with the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, does so by establishing broad criteria and conditions that provinces and territories must fulfill to receive full cash contributions under the Canada health transfer. Provincial health insurance legislation and regulations, including those of Quebec, mirror and in some cases go beyond the requirements of the Canada Health Act.

That leads me to my first concern regarding the proposed legislation. By accepting this legislation and exempting Quebec from the Canada Health Act's conditions, we would weaken the foundation of Canada's universal health care system. The act establishes the objectives and values underlying universal, single-payer health care. For provinces to receive full health care transfer payments, provincial health insurance programs must be in compliance with five broad principles: universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and public administration. Provinces have not requested that these conditions be repealed.

Moreover, I would like to remind the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois that since the creation of the Canada Health Act, Quebec has broadly complied with the act's principles. Indeed, the discretionary penalty provisions of the act, which give the government discretion to withhold the Canada health transfer contributions to provinces in contravention with these five principles, have actually never been used. There have been some instances of non-compliance in Quebec and other provinces with respect to extra billing and user charges, where mandatory deductions under the Canada Health Act have been applied.

It is also important to note that the principle of asymmetric federalism renders the proposed amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act unnecessary for Quebec. As part of the 2004 health accord, the federal government and the Government of Quebec signed a bilateral agreement on asymmetrical federalism. Under this agreement, Quebec supported the overall objectives and general principles set out by first ministers, while respecting Quebec's desire to exercise its own responsibility in planning, organizing and managing health services. This agreement has continued to shape the federal approach to bilateral agreements with Quebec, notably the 2017 agreement on home and community care and mental health and addictions services and funding.

Importantly, the asymmetric agreements with Quebec in the area of health care have been applied within the parameters of the Canada Health Act principles. For example, the communiqué from the 2004 health accord on asymmetric federalism that respects Quebec's jurisdiction states as one of its preambles, “noting that its commitment with regard to the underlying principles of its public health system—universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and public administration—coincides with that of all governments in Canada....” Stated differently, the government entered into asymmetrical health agreements with Quebec because the province already adhered to the Canada Health Act principles.

Historically, provinces other than Quebec have recognized the benefits of federal spending power. In 1999, all provinces except Quebec agreed to the social union framework agreement, which recognizes a set of social policy principles and ways to allow the exercise of the federal spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, provided that a majority of provinces agree.

That agreement recognizes, “The use of the federal spending power...has been essential to the development of Canada's social union.” Its continued use is important to ensure access to “essential social programs and services of reasonably comparable quality” for all Canadians, wherever they live or move in Canada, to promote their full and active participation in Canada's social and economic life.

It should also be acknowledged that the federal spending powers during the pandemic have delivered results for Quebeckers while continuing to recognize Quebec's unique place within the federation.

The government remains committed to working with the provinces and territories and key stakeholders to advance shared priorities for the health care system and to improve health outcomes for Canadians. One of those commitments, for example, is to ensure that Canadians who require long-term care get the services they deserve. To address this, our government has committed to providing up to $3 billion to support the provinces and territories in ensuring that standards for care are applied. The Canadian Standards Association and the Health Standards Organization are currently working to finalize national standards for long-term care by late 2022.

To summarize, we believe that Bill C-237 would undermine the government's ability to deliver health care results for Canadians if provinces are allowed to be exempt from the conditions laid out in the Canada Health Act. We also believe there is no need to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to allow provinces to withdraw from federal programs in provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has a strong record of establishing agreements that cater to Quebec's specific needs, such as the 2004 agreement on asymmetrical federalism that continues to respect Quebec's jurisdiction and falls within the parameters of the Canada Health Act.

For these reasons, and the others that have been mentioned, I would strongly encourage all members of the House to vote against this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate.

There being no further debate, the hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are winding up debate at second reading of Bill C-237.

This bill gives the provinces the right to withdraw when the federal government creates a program that should be the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I found the term “exclusive” in the Constitution. When we speak of exclusive jurisdictions, we are referring to matters that fall under the authority of either the provinces or the federal government.

The term “exclusive” exempts Quebec from the standards and conditions that the federal government imposes before providing funding for health care. There has been a consensus in Quebec for 50 years on this position, which is the basis for the major constitutional crises that have occurred over the years.

This week's debate is taking place against the backdrop of the election campaign in Quebec. On Monday, Quebeckers will go to the polls and will have to make a decision about many things. I am thinking of the health care system, which the pandemic demonstrated was fragile and underfunded. One party says there should be more privatization, another wants to make seniors' homes the priority and yet another is counting on existing public services, home care and long-term care centres.

This has been top of mind during the campaign, and on Monday, Quebeckers will vote and decide. Usually, when the public makes a decision, that is the end of it. No matter what choice the Quebec nation makes, Canadians will have to agree because Ottawa is imposing all kinds of conditions. It is imposing its own standards on us and wants us to adopt its priorities.

I am talking about health, but this is true in all sorts of areas, such as housing, education, family policy and taxation. In fact, it is true in almost all areas. That is what it means to be a minority, even though this House recognized that we were a nation by a nearly unanimous vote a few years ago. The Bloc Québécois wants the right to opt out of federal programs in areas that should be the responsibility of Quebec instead of Ottawa because we want to be masters in our own house.

When I introduced Bill C‑237, I hoped to advance the autonomy of Quebec. We are currently being led by a minority government. The Bloc Québécois wants Quebec to be a country, but in the meantime, it wants us to be masters in our own house to the extent possible. That is only natural. The Conservative Party campaigned on respecting provincial jurisdictions. The NDP has its Sherbrooke declaration, which supports Quebec's right to opt out. Between the three parties, we can move Bill C‑237 forward.

However, I was bitterly disappointed when we were debating this bill. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie says that he supports the right to withdraw, but only if Quebeckers adhere to the NDP agenda. The Conservative member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington says that she respects provincial jurisdictions, but only if the Liberals agree and grant a royal recommendation. If not, she is against the bill.

I want to point out that the Constitution gives exclusive powers to Quebec and the provinces. This means that the federal government must not interfere. This is set out in the Constitution that English Canada adopted, the Constitution that Quebec never signed. Now a Bloc Québécois member, a separatist MP, is standing up in the House and demanding that the federal government respect the Constitution. The Canadian parties are the ones not respecting it. It is all backwards.

However, it is not too late. Election platforms are not just documents to be used during an election campaign and then thrown away. I am appealing to the NDP and the Conservative Party to keep the promises they made to Quebeckers during the election campaign. Let Bill C‑237 move on to the next stage. That will give us time to convince the government to grant a royal recommendation.

If Bill C‑237 is passed, Ottawa will be free to do as it pleases in areas under its jurisdiction, just as Quebec and the other provinces will be free to act in areas under their jurisdiction.

Everyone would respect everyone else's jurisdictions. The key word is “respect”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Health

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, after the Liberals finally caught up with our international allies and declared that it is safe for people to get onto planes and trains or return to work in the federal public service without a COVID vaccine, they are still saying that it is unsafe for a person to serve our country in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We know that the Liberals replaced COVID science with political science a long time ago, so it comes as no surprise that they would continue such an unscientific and contradictory mandate. Canada's soldiers, sailors and airmen are the best in the world. Let me say that again: They are the best in the world.

We have watched time and time again as they have answered our country's call and calls for aid from nations around the world. Just this week, we have witnessed them come to the aid of our friends in Atlantic Canada in the aftermath of a hurricane, where we heard grandmothers breathing sighs of relief at the sight of our soldiers rolling into tiny villages to lend a hand.

With Russia on the war path, Canada's armed forces must be prepared to defend our allies and our borders. It is high time for the Prime Minister to drop the last of his politically motivated and divisive COVID mandates and give our brave men and women in uniform their jobs back.

This week we heard that Friday will be the last day for COVID border restrictions, such as the proof of vaccination, quarantine, testing and isolation requirements for people entering Canada, as the government catches up to all of the provinces on following the science. We know that, at the same time, the mandatory use of the ArriveCAN app will cease.

This is important because Canadians have had an incredibly challenging time. We have seen people lose their jobs. We have seen people struggle with the isolation of lockdowns. We have seen people miss monumental events such as welcoming new life and saying goodbye to loved ones.

At a time when Canadians are facing unprecedented, in many of their lives, cost-of-living increases, the government has collected or issued fines worth over a million dollars to people trying to enter Canada. It is because of the failed ArriveCAN app that it has issued those fines. The government needs to do the right thing, and it needs to do the compassionate thing. It needs to rescind the fines, cancel the collections and refund the payments to Canadians. Frankly, it needs to apologize for the impacts of this failed app on Canadians.

I do not know what the difference is in the science today and the science Saturday that will see these mandates end, but it is high time that they end. We are glad that they are ending. We call on the government to do the right thing and refund those who have been wrongly fined with the ArriveCAN app.