44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2024 10:00AM
- May/30/24 7:09:30 p.m.
- Watch
Yes. Thank you very much. I think all members know very well what the rules are because of the fact we have been doing this over and again for quite some time. There is no quorum call during these debates.
The hon. member for Mirabel.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that adds a bit of spice to our evening, obviously.
As I was saying, we asked for the right to opt out with full financial compensation. That should have been granted, in the interests of patients, those who are ill and workers. However, it was denied by the Speaker on the pretext that it requires royal recommendation, when the only thing Quebec wants is to have its share of the funds that are already allocated within this bill.
This shows just how institutionalized and deep-seated Ottawa's desire is to crush Quebec, to crush Quebec's desire to act in its own areas of jurisdiction and to exercise authority within its own areas of jurisdiction based on its preferences, particularly when it comes to pharmacare. It is in the genes of Ottawa's politicians, in their DNA. What is happening here today is so unfortunate.
It is unfortunate because the interests of patients and Quebeckers are coming second. We should be greatly saddened to see that people's health is being politicized for electoral purposes. That should never be commended.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am truly surprised that the Bloc Québécois refuses to listen to what Quebeckers are saying.
A large coalition, the largest in Quebec, made up of two million Quebeckers, major unions and community groups, said that Quebeckers applauded the federal government's Bill C‑64.
They said the following:
Never before have we come so close to implementing a real public, universal pharmacare program. The hybrid public-private system in place in Quebec creates a two-tiered system that is unsustainable and needs to be fixed.
While criticizing the system, they also said this:
We are asking the federal government not to give in to the provinces and territories, which are asking for an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation.
That is the message that Quebeckers are sending to the Bloc Québécois. It is a bit like dental care, where the largest percentage of people advocating for dental care are Quebeckers.
Why does the Bloc Québécois refuse to listen to Quebeckers?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:12:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are dissenting voices in every society. There are debates in every society. However, Quebec's voice is heard in the Quebec National Assembly, which is made up of 125 members who are elected by the people.
My NDP colleague's leader had the nerve to send a letter to Quebec's health minister. He literally told the health minister that he wanted a meeting with him, that he wanted to educate him and teach him how pharmacare works.
Do members know how Quebec's democracy responded? First, he was told to take a hike, because it was deeply disrespectful and ridiculous. Then, Quebec's democracy unanimously passed a motion in the National Assembly denouncing this kind of paternalistic attitude, which is, and always will be, unacceptable.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:13:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mirabel for a very well-thought-out speech.
I come from Ontario, and the Conservative Government of Ontario has something called the Ontario drug benefit program. The member is aware of, and quite rightly pointed out, the jurisdiction of the provinces.
The pharmacare program that the government is bringing forward is not really a pharmacare program. It is like an announcement. It does not cover most of the drugs that the provincial plans cover. No Canadian, no Ontarian, wants a worse plan that would cover less. Perhaps the federal government would only cover certain medications.
Could the member explain to the Liberals and the NDP a little more about the jurisdictional issues that they are dealing with, and what people on the ground in his community are really asking for?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:14:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question.
One thing is for certain: If the federal government has money for the provinces to cover more drugs, then perhaps even more drugs could be covered if the money is sent to the provinces and they are given the right to opt out with full compensation so that they can expand programs with existing infrastructure.
However, Ottawa has this bad habit of creating structures, bureaucracy and new layers of all sorts of things that cost a lot of money. Then we end up with dental care plans like the Liberal plan that ultimately involves the private sector, which runs counter to the very principle of the Canada Health Act if it were subject to it. That is what we end up with. These are failures after failures.
What is the point of all this? It is about campaigning for the Liberals and the NDP.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:15:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am also from Quebec and I fully respect Quebec's jurisdictions.
I have a question for my colleague. Does he not know that, right now in Quebec, IUD fittings, for example, are not covered by insurance? Women have to pay every month for their method of contraception, which costs between $20 and $30. Many women choose not to take contraceptives.
Why not simply join a program that will give all women free access to their choice of contraception?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:15:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my best regards to the minister. I thank her for her very good question.
I will use the same wording to answer. Does she not know that Quebec is asking for health transfers? Does she not know that Quebec needs unconditional transfers? Does she not know about the health care funding deficit? Does she not know that if Ottawa stopped saying no to health transfers, we might not be where we are today?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:16:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by just taking a moment to congratulate the citizens of the United States of America and the rule of law that has prevailed this evening. Donald J. Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts. Justice will be done in the United States, and a serial criminal, who has committed many crimes but never had to pay the price, will finally be behind bars in a matter of a few months.
I send my regards to the citizens of the United States. Tonight, the verdict is in, and Donald Trump has been found guilty on 34 counts. Finally, we see justice being served in the United States.
There are Conservatives who admire this convicted criminal. I think it is important and very relevant to the debate tonight that Conservatives have imposed five hours of debate, at a cost to Canadians of $400,000. This is being spent on a debate that Conservatives have put forward—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:17:33 p.m.
- Watch
I just want to remind members that if they have questions or comments, or if they are not interested in listening to the debate, they should ensure that they hold off until it is the appropriate time or step out of the chamber and come back when they are interested in listening to the debate.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:17:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would also suggest to Conservative members that they should not be drinking and coming into the House. It is not a good combination, and it does not look good on them. The reality is—
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:18:02 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:18:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has been in this chamber for a very long time and knows that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. To assert that Conservative members are drinking and coming into the chamber intoxicated is incredibly unparliamentary. I would ask that he withdraw those comments.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:18:29 p.m.
- Watch
I am not sure exactly what is being done. If the hon. members could stick to the subject matter that is before the House, the House will run much more smoothly. I do not think that putting accusations forward is proper.
I would just ask the member to withdraw so that we can continue.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:19:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was not an allegation, but advice, and that is quite a different matter.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Peter Julian: However, Madam Speaker, I will withdraw it if that advice was misconstrued by any member, including the member who seems to be shouting very belligerently.
This debate tonight is going to cost us $400,000, which is a lot of money. Even Conservative MPs, I think, would agree to that. However, what they have proposed in this debate tonight on pharmacare is a Conservative series of motions to delete the entire bill. That is why we are spending $400,000 of taxpayers' money. That is it. That is what they have to offer tonight, which is certainly in keeping with what they have been doing since February 29. They have been trying to block, by all means possible, the passage of pharmacare.
Why would they do that? Why would they waste $400,000 of taxpayers' money? Conservatives love spending money. We saw this under the Harper regime, with $30 billion given each year to overseas tax havens, tens of billions of dollars given to corporate CEOs in the oil and gas sector and $116 billion, including from the CMHC, given to banks to prop up their profits. I mean, there were unbelievable amounts of cash showered on lobbyists, on corporate CEOs and on banks. Conservatives love to spend money on anything but what actually helps people.
Conservatives have raised the question today, curiously, and are spending $400,000 of taxpayers' money on a useless debate where all they are offering, in terms of motions, is deleting every single clause in the bill. There is absolutely nothing respectful of Parliament to try to put forward such a motion. They are ready to spend $400,000 to basically waste a whole evening on a useless debate about deleting the bill rather than just voting against it, which is what normal people would do. However, they are unwilling to spend a penny to help people such as Amber.
Amber pays $1,000 a month for her diabetes medication. She lives in Burnaby, B.C. She has to scrimp and save; she finds it difficult to keep a roof over her head and to put food on the table. However, the member for Carleton and his entire caucus are suggesting that it is okay to burn $400,000 tonight on a useless, meaningless debate in which they are simply trying to delete every single clause of the bill. For them, it is okay to give $116 billion, including from a housing fund, for bank profits. It is okay to give tens of billions of dollars to corporate CEOs in the oil and gas sector. It is okay to put in place the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, for a loss of $30 billion each and every year over the course of the dismal Harper regime; that is nearly $300 billion that they just burned. However, when it comes to helping Amber or their own constituents with paying for diabetes medication, which can sometimes cost as much as $1,500 a month, Conservatives draw the line. They say, “No, hey, we give money to banks. We give money to oil and gas CEOs. We give money to big people. We give money to the rich. That is where we love to spend our money.” The member for Carleton, the lobbyist-in-chief of the Conservative Party, believes that this is where Canadian taxpayers' money should go, not on pharmacare and certainly not on dental care.
Now, on the dental care front, Canadians have said overwhelmingly to Conservatives that they are wrong. There were 120,000 seniors getting dental services in the first three weeks. What Conservative MP, over the course of their career, can ever point to having helped people? On the NDP side of the House, we can point to 120,000 seniors, including many in Conservative ridings, who have been helped immediately by the work of the member from Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus. The NDP forced dental care through the House of Commons even though it was voted against four years ago by both Conservatives and Liberals. We certainly proved our worth to Canadians, and we have come back on pharmacare. However, Conservatives say the same thing: “We do not want to see our constituents helped.” There are 18,000 people in each Conservative riding in the country who would benefit from having diabetes medication paid for. Amber is just an example of what millions of Canadians are living with.
Canadians are looking for contraception. Women are looking for their reproductive rights and freedoms. There are 25,000 on average in each and every Conservative riding in the country, and the Conservatives say, “No, we do not want to give them that money. We want to burn $400,000 on an all-evening debate about motions that would simply delete every single clause of the bill.” That is the one contribution that Conservatives have been making to the debate since February 29.
On this side of the House, we actually believe in helping people, unlike the member for Carleton. He has never really held a job in his life. He worked for Dairy Queen for a few weeks, and that is it. Everything else has been given to him by the Conservative Party. In my background, I had to work as a manual labourer. I had to work in the service industries. I had to work my way through school as a teacher. I worked in a brewery. I worked in an oil refinery. I have working experience. The member for Carleton has not a whit, and maybe that is why, because every single member of the NDP caucus can point to that real-life, real-world work experience, we understand that when people are struggling to make ends meet, they actually need us to help them.
Conservatives will say they want to take a few cents off a litre of gas on the price on carbon. They are going to eliminate the price on pollution, as if somehow that would help Canadians, and we know full well that already the cost of the climate crisis goes far beyond the price that it has put on pollution.
The Conservatives, despite the fact that now the member for Carleton has been leader for a couple of years, have not been able to offer a single solitary thing to Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table. One could ask, if the Conservatives are bad, what about the Liberals? The reality is that the biggest fault of the Liberal government has been that it continued all the Harper practices. We still have the infamous Harper tax haven treaties still costing us $30 billion a year, according to the PBO. The government also coughed up money to the banks over COVID and was willing to spend money from the CMHC. Instead of that going to affordable housing, it went to prop up the banks, and the government has continued the oil and gas subsidies.
The biggest thing that I can reproach the Liberals on is the fact that they have acted like the Conservatives, with some exceptions, and that is because the NDP has stepped up to force them to get dental care into place. That has been an undeniable success. It is the best new support for Canadians that we have seen in decades. Now with pharmacare, people like Amber can know in the next few months, once we pass this bill, that they will actually get supports, and Amber will not have to struggle to find $1,000 each month to pay for her diabetes medication.
That is why I am supporting the bill, and that is why I find it ridiculous that the Conservatives are forcing, at a cost of $400,000, this ridiculous debate to delete all clauses in the bill tonight.
1339 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:27:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things that amazes me is the degree to which the Conservatives are so insensitive to their own constituents. One of the biggest beneficiaries of passing this legislation would be people with diabetes. Every member of Parliament has literally hundreds, if not thousands, of constituents with diabetes, and this bill is long overdue. I would like to to see it passed, and the Conservatives do not seem to want to recognize the important impact this is going to have on Canadians with diabetes.
Could the member provide his thoughts on that aspect, please?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:28:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the question is a very relevant one. On average, 18,000 people in each and every Conservative riding in the country, whether it is Cariboo—Prince George or Cumberland—Colchester, could benefit from the pharmacare provisions that the NDP have pushed the government to put into place, yet those members of Parliament, instead of helping their constituents, are siding with big pharma.
Who are they benefiting by, for the last few months, fighting to stop this bill from helping their constituents who pay $1,000, sometimes $1,500, a month for medication? I think they need some reflection, because Conservatives are not doing anything to help their constituents at all.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:29:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is absolutely fascinating, because when we look at the statistics, about a million people really do suffer from a lack of coverage. That is just the fact, in spite of the conflated numbers that the member from NDP wishes to state.
Maybe the member could do his math again on behalf of all Canadians and let Canadians know how many diabetics really need this program. There are some, admittedly, who really need it, whereas many others have fantastic coverage. His foolish plan would actually take away their coverage, leaving them with less ability to choose the insulin that works well for them or the other medications that are important to their own health, and the freedom of choice that they now have.
Perhaps the member could swallow his pride and get his numbers straight on behalf of Canadians.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:30:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I like the member.
We have had a breakthrough. One Conservative has finally admitted that people actually need pharmacare. One Conservative said, “Oh gosh, yes”. His numbers are wrong, but he is right in saying that people actually need pharmacare.
Why have the Conservatives been fighting tooth and nail to block this bill since February 29? Why have they been trying to stop their constituents, 18,000 of them, who he has just admitted actually need the program, from getting the program they need?
There is a breakthrough tonight. Maybe this is a use for some of that $400,000 that the Conservatives are burning. If some Conservatives had the penny drop and finally realize that they are doing the wrong thing, they may start to do the right thing. That would be a benefit to all Canadians.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:31:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member was starting to hit the nail on the head here, when he made reference to the fact that there might be some benefit in terms of late-night sitting tonight, if somehow we can get the Conservatives to flip-flop on this particular issue.
It is encouraging, and the first step is to recognize not only people with diabetes, but also the millions of Canadians who would directly benefit because of contraceptive coverage. I believe it is somewhere around nine million women who would, potentially, directly benefit from this aspect of the program.
Can the member comment?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
