44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 22, 2024 02:00PM
- May/22/24 2:37:33 p.m.
- Watch
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we see that the Conservative Party's opposition to the price on pollution is ideological and not concrete. Their opposition to the price on pollution means they do not care about fighting against climate change. Even as wildfires are already raging in different parts of the country, they have no plan to fight against climate change. They do it in the name of affordability while ignoring the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who actually showed that eight out of 10 Canadian families do better with the money put in their pockets from the Canada carbon rebate than it costs them with the price on pollution.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 2:43:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the Leader of the Opposition's desire to make clever rhetorical points, he actually completely ignores the basic facts.
The price on pollution is revenue-neutral for the federal government, which means that the money that comes in for the price on pollution, for the carbon tax, gets returned to the jurisdictions. That is why the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that eight out of 10 Canadian families in jurisdictions where the carbon price applies do better with the Canada carbon rebate, which comes in four times a year, than the price on pollution costs them. That is a plan to fight climate change and put money in people's pockets.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 2:48:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we know that, after eight years, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost of housing, which has doubled. Today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a damning report that showed that after the Prime Minister promised he would eliminate chronic homelessness, it has actually gone up 38%. The number of people living in unsheltered locations is up 88%. This is after he spent half a billion dollars on homelessness programs.
If it costs half a billion dollars for him to drive up homelessness, how much would it cost to drive it down?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 3:06:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of this Prime Minister and the Bloc Québécois, Canadians are exhausted. They are out of money, and some are going hungry. They need a vacation, but it costs too much. When the Prime Minister doubled the national debt, he inflated prices across the board. Interest rates also went up. That is why the common-sense Conservatives are suggesting that he suspend the taxes on gas and diesel to give Quebeckers a break.
Will the Prime Minister have enough common sense to agree to this cost-cutting measure?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 3:18:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that we paid back a significant amount of the costs incurred by the City of Windsor during the Conservative-supported convoy. There is a matter of a dispute around whether its legal fees were to be covered by the federal government.
I know the Minister of Public Safety is meeting with the mayor of Windsor tomorrow, and I am sure that this will be in the discussion. In the meanwhile, we have continued to stand up for Windsor with historic investments in jobs and opportunities for Windsorites that, quite frankly, Conservatives continue to stand against. We will continue to be there for the people of Windsor.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 5:06:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, certainly there are many reasons to get behind this kind of legislation, but there is also an economic reason. I appeal to the red Tories who are standing opposite right now. On the diabetes stats alone, unnecessary costs are incurred from lost productivity and elevated health care system use due to diabetes and its complications, which include heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, blindness and amputation. If we provide diabetes medication free of charge, we can save an estimated $27 billion to $39 billion in our health care system in this country by 2028. That makes fiscal sense, not to mention ethical sense.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 5:16:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think the fiscal case for proceeding in this manner is quite remarkably already laid out in studies, such as the one at UBC that I cited, and studies that we have seen in other areas with respect to diabetes. If there was no need for these kinds of services, I would query the Conservatives why 1.9 million seniors in this country registered for the Canada dental benefit, if no actual need existed.
I would put to the Conservatives, also, that if there was no need for extending that coverage on dental care, why we have already had 100,000 appointments set up, in literally the first three weeks of the program. It expresses to me, on a simplistic analysis, that the need is acute.
We are addressing the need with the program. Does it cost money? It absolutely costs money. However, that is an investment on the front end that cures costs to the system on the back end, which is something that a traditional red Tory would normally get behind.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 5:19:22 p.m.
- Watch
I do not agree at all with the remarks of my colleague opposite.
First, when we created a national program for all of Canada's provinces and territories by investing about $200 billion, we launched a process to sign bilateral agreements with each province, Quebec included.
Second, I would ask my colleague to talk to diabetics and women in his riding about the cost of their medication these days. The oral contraception pill costs about $25 a month, or $300 a year. Diabetes medication can cost between $900 and $1,700 a year.
I think my colleague should support this bill so that his constituents can save money while receiving care from the health system and getting their medication.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 6:39:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would just politely remind the member opposite to take a look at the text of the actual proposed programming motion. It talks about the committee meeting for five hours a day on two further sitting days, so that would be ten hours of hearings. There would be a third sitting day for actual clause-by-clause analysis. There has also already been ten hours of debate on this important bill. I think it is important for Canadians to understand why we believe this is important because Canadians should not have to choose between paying for their bills and paying for their health care.
We know that cost has consistently been identified as the single most important barrier to accessing medications and that cost is unevenly borne by women and gender-diverse Canadians; that is on the contraception piece. With respect to diabetes, one in four Canadians with diabetes has reported not following their treatment plan according to the cost and their inability to pay those costs.
That is significant because, as I said earlier in this debate, people with diabetes that goes untreated end up having more significant health care consequences, which include things like stroke and amputation. The knock-on health care costs to our system are very significant, let alone the hardships those people endure. Through this legislation, which we are putting an emphasis on passing quickly, we can improve the health care outcomes and the economic outcomes for those Canadians.
246 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
