44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 28, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded and traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. We are debating a bill that is very relevant not just to those first nation groups but all first nations, Métis and Inuit in Canada.
Before I get into the context of my speech, I want to point out Bill C-29 would establish the national council for reconciliation. This is in response to the calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, in particular calls to action numbers 53 and 56. Basically, the national council for reconciliation would be a permanent, independent and indigenous-led organization that would monitor and support the progress of reconciliation in Canada, including the full implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.
I want to take a few moments to explain how we arrived where we are, because there is some insinuation on the floor of the House that indigenous people did not lead this process and did not make the decisions around what the new legislation would look like and how it would evolve. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As a member of Parliament who represents a large population of survivors of residential schools and as the daughter of a mother who is a survivor of residential school, I do not need to tell anyone how important this piece of legislation is to my family, to my constituents and to many indigenous Canadians in this country. To say this would come to the House of Commons without their full support, their full participation and their co-leading and leading all sections of this piece of legislation would be accusations that are totally false and incorrect.
There are so many things I could talk about as it relates to the TRC. It is something I have been involved with for many years. It is important as well that I walk my colleagues through the work the government has done to get to where we are today. We worked really hard to renew our relationship with indigenous people. One only needs to go back to 2015, when we came into office, to see this. One of the first things we did was to immediately start implementing the calls to action. In fact, we were the only party, and to date I believe still the only party, in Canada that has said we are prepared to implement all 94 recommendations of the TRC.
When we took on the task of designing this legislation, first of all we started engagement with indigenous leaders and communities. We knew they were going to be integral to this process. Every step along the way, they have been engaged, included and leading what has happened here. The process was led by the indigenous leadership of the national council for reconciliation's interim board.
I will explain a bit about the interim board and about the transitional committee that came after that, but both of these were independent bodies. They were made up of first nations, Inuit and Métis members, who all came to the table providing their very best advice and experiences and took into account a very wide range of diverse voices and perspectives from all across Canada.
I also want to acknowledge the monumental work that has been done by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which has really been the foundation for this bill and where we are today in bringing it to the House of Commons.
As many in this chamber will recall, the commission has set forward a pathway of reconciliation to begin the healing necessary in relation to the intergenerational traumas and ongoing impacts caused by the residential school system.
The extensive and historic work of the TRC was pivotal in laying out the groundwork for this legislation, as I said earlier, and the national council for reconciliation was laid out in calls to action numbers 53 and 56. They were two of the 94 that we are on the path of implementing.
In developing the final report, the council took a very inclusive, very indigenous-led approach. It listened to the voices of indigenous people. It heard from survivors of these institutions, as well as from their families and from their communities.
Our government has strived to honour that approach by fully implementing the calls to action and a national council for reconciliation, and by inviting and supporting indigenous leadership throughout the whole process, with its culmination being the development of this proposed legislation.
This process has been led by the truth and reconciliation commissioners, residential school survivors, indigenous people who participated in the TRC process, and everyone who envisioned that an independent, indigenous-led, national oversight body was the way forward.
The commissioners envisioned a national council that would prepare an annual report on the state of reconciliation in which the Government of Canada would respond publicly, outlining its plans to advance reconciliation.
In developing this bill, our government has listened to these diverse voices. Indigenous leaders and community members had the courage to step forward to tell the country about their experiences, how it affected them and how it affected their families throughout their whole lives. Let us not forget that despite the personal and tragic impact this had on them, it is their voices that are guiding us in the right way to help communities, to help future generations of indigenous people, and to help us toward a journey of healing in Canada for all indigenous people. That is remarkable. It is remarkable that those who suffered the most are leading the process of healing today.
After the Truth and Reconciliation Commission fulfilled its mandate, the federal government responded to its calls and established a national council for reconciliation. In doing so, we created an interim board that helped transition to the next steps. It made recommendations on the scope and the mandate of what that council should look like. That was the first step.
Then the federal government appointed the interim board of directors in 2018. That board was comprised of six indigenous leaders who were chosen to represent first nations, Inuit and Métis, including a former truth and reconciliation commissioner, Dr. Wilton Littlechild, who is no stranger to indigenous people in Canada.
This independent board was responsible for providing advice to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on establishing the national council for reconciliation. They were all indigenous voices at that table.
The interim board held its engagement process shortly after that, in April 2018, meeting with various indigenous organizations and non-indigenous stakeholders across the country. As part of the council's mandate, members looked at the legislation, at the scope of the council, and, more broadly, at long-term reconciliation.
The interim board carefully considered all it had heard from its engagements with various indigenous and non-indigenous peoples and organizations, as well as at an engagement event in Ottawa, and it developed a final report. This process included, again, a very diverse group of people, with community members, academics, businesses, arts and health professionals, and other interested parties. Each member of the interim board reached out to additional individuals to ask for their views as well on the establishment of the national council for reconciliation.
The government, in addition to including all these people of indigenous background in various capacities across the country, also reached out to non-indigenous Canadians for their thoughts about creating a council. An online platform was created to capture the views of Canadians on the subject, where people could share their thoughts on the mandate of the future national council for reconciliation and what its first steps should be. I can honestly tell members that the input on that was very positive.
The other step forward was the engagement that took place. That happened directly with the national indigenous organizations. The interim board, which is an indigenous board, reached out to the Assembly of First Nations, the ITK and the Métis National Council to seek their input on the mandate for the council. Including this step in the process meant that indigenous community members, as well as political leaders, had the opportunity to express their perspectives about creating the council. When I say political leaders, I mean indigenous political leaders.
At every step of the way, establishing an indigenous-led approach was valuable, necessary and the practice for this entire process. It was only after the interim board had heard a wide spectrum of indigenous voices that it prepared its final report and incorporated what it had heard in that report.
It presented the report in June 2018, containing recommendations relating to the vision, mission, mandate, structure, membership, funding, reporting and legislation for the national council for reconciliation. It also said that it would be independent, permanent and a non-political body. It would also be a catalyst for innovative thought, dialogue and action.
The interim board also made recommendations about how the government should implement those particular priorities, saying that the government should create a transitional committee to support the next steps. It also said the government should draft the legislation, and that it should be co-drafted with the advice and leadership of the transitional committee members. I heard members mention that today. They did not look kindly on that process, but if they had read the recommendations from the interim report of indigenous people, they would have seen that that was the recommendation to government, to set up the transitional committee.
The interim board also recommended that there be more outreach and engagement, so we went from building on the work of the interim board to the Department of Justice preparing a draft legislative framework that could be used for consultation purposes. I think it is important to make special note of that fact.
We can really see that indigenous communities are at the heart of this proposed legislation. The next step after the interim board was, as it recommended, a transitional committee. That was established in December 2021. The members were appointed by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, and the committee reviewed the draft legislative framework and considered ways it could improve it to ensure there was a strong and effective council.
The interim board's engagement activities went on from 2018 into the transitional committee, and it then went on to carry out even more engagement with indigenous communities and indigenous peoples. The committee members met with indigenous and non-indigenous experts, including lawyers, data specialists, and financial and reconciliation experts. They gathered feedback and advice in areas such as reconciliation, law, data, organizational finances, information sharing, governance and accountability, and then used it to form their recommendations.
Basically, it was the work that was done all through this process over the last four years that has gotten us to the legislation we see here today. The transitional committee made recommendations on how to strengthen and draft the legislative framework while maintaining the vision, the purpose and the mandate that the council had expressed in the vision that it brought forward.
Today, in the House of Commons, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has introduced Bill C-29, which is now being debated with the full inclusion and input of indigenous peoples and communities and experts right across Canada. It is being done after extensive engagement with indigenous peoples and organizations, after leaders have been involved in co-developing the legislative process and ensuring that the legislation that is before us here today is at the heart of what indigenous people have been asking for in this country.
Every step of the way, and I cannot say this enough, this has been an indigenous-led process, starting with the TRC recommendations to the bill that members see before them in the House of Commons today. I am confident that this has led to strong legislation that, if passed, will serve indigenous peoples and Canadians across the country very well in the years to come.
I know that the survivors of residential schools are so impacted by the legacy of what has happened in this country. I know that each and every day they look at ways they can build stronger partnerships with each other, with governments and with Canadians. I also know that they are leading a path of healing, and that is a long journey. We can help on the journey, and what we are doing today is helping. We are responding to what they are asking for. We have allowed them to lead the process, co-develop the legislation and be a part of where this goes into the future.
Before I say meegwetch, nakurmiik, marsi, I would like to move a motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
2185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 6:43:26 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion. Will members who object to the motion please rise?
And five or more members having risen:
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Given that more than five members have risen, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciated listening to what the member had to say, and I understand that the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations appointed the interim board of directors, the transitional committee and now, in Bill C-29, he would be responsible to select the directors of the national council.
I wonder if the member could clarify this for me. In a past bill, as it was being discussed in the House and debated, we found out that the environmental council that was being created had already been established. Could she tell me whether or not individuals have already been appointed prior to the debate on the bill finishing in the House, and how many if that is the case?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, all of the appointments that are done by the minister and council are done in consultation with indigenous groups and leadership in Canada. That is the process we have, and that is the mantra we follow as a government. In terms of the transitional piece, it was the same process that occurred, and as we move into the new reconciliation board, there is ample opportunity for people to be considered even at this stage.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for mentioning frequently that indigenous peoples have been engaged in this whole process. Indigenous peoples have frequently experienced being deprived of their rights and their rights being infringed.
The 94 calls to action frequently talk about the importance of implementing UNDRIP. I wonder if the member could explain why Bill C-29 does not have any mention of implementing UNDRIP.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for all the work she has done in pushing for, supporting and advocating for the implementation of both UNDRIP and all recommendations in the TRC report.
This particular process falls within the purview of what we are doing with UNDRIP. As members know, UNDRIP is very important to us. We have accepted it. We are leading a process with indigenous governments and groups across Canada and will ensure that everything we do as a government will fall under the purview of what is expected under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
32 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 6:50:09 p.m.
- Watch
That is debate, not a point of order.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 6:51:52 p.m.
- Watch
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.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
846 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
459 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 7:12:03 p.m.
- Watch
The member for New Westminster—Burnaby on a point of order.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 7:12:08 p.m.
- Watch
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.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
