44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 3, 2024 11:00AM
- Jun/3/24 6:18:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be very quick, but I just want to recognize that there is an annual game played among MPs and pages. It is a long-standing tradition, and the game took place last week. I am pleased to present the fact that the—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:18:25 p.m.
- Watch
That would be more in the nature of a member's statement than a point of order.
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has the floor.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:18:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a national drug program or pharmacare program would be a great idea if we were not a trillion dollars in the hole. As a consequence of being so in debt, taxes are going up and driving our doctors out of the country. How is a pharmacare program going to help people who do not even have a doctor to provide a prescription and have no way of getting a prescription? How is the government going to decide who gets the medicine when there is a drug shortage, as we have seen recently with diabetes? How are they going to decide who lives and dies?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:19:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is beyond the pale that Conservatives continue to refer to a national pharmacare plan as an expenditure that we just cannot afford. It is so unfortunate.
This is an affordability measure. It is a way to support Canadians who are vulnerable. It is a proven method to ensure that vulnerable, lower-income and disproportionately impacted Canadians will receive the financial support they need. There are Canadians living in period poverty, who cannot access contraception and who just simply do not have regular access to diabetes medications.
A government is required to be able to do many complicated things simultaneously. We need to address the doctor shortage. We need to meet Canadians where they are and ensure they have the medications that they deserve and that they need in order to live full and fulfilled lives.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:20:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He just responded to the Conservatives by saying that this money needs to be spent to provide a service. I agree with him. However, we have to be efficient. To be efficient, we should entrust this money to the people who are competent.
A system already exists in Quebec. My colleague is well aware of it. I am going to give him a mission to fulfill within his party, his government. He needs to convince his caucus and the people who run it to transfer the money to Quebec, unconditionally.
I can assure the House that the Quebec government will get the job done on health care because that falls within its jurisdiction.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:21:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but it is always the same story with the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc members always say that in Canada, the provincial government, in this case Quebec, is wholly responsible for the health care system. In actual fact, that is the case until the bill arrives and it is time to pay for the health care system.
Canada's health care system is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments. We need only think of the health care provided at the regional level in my riding. It is so important that we find solutions together.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:22:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we hear from the Conservative caucus about the costs of pharmacare. The member spoke about how this is needed for an affordability measure, but we have not heard about how national single-payer pharmacare saves money. The Parliamentary Budget Officer tabled a report saying that $1.4 billion would be saved because national single-payer pharmacare gives governments the negotiating and bargaining power to drive down drug costs. Therefore, it is not surprising to see Conservatives oppose it when their friends, the lobbyists, the CEOs and big pharma keep saying the same things that they do.
Can the member speak to how Conservatives are constantly looking out for the corporations at the very top instead of everyday Canadians who are struggling to pay for essential medications?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:23:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. This is not only a cost-savings measure for the government, the health care system or people who live with diabetes or require contraception, but it is also a way to save money within the system. When Canadians stick to their regimen and take their diabetes medication, they will visit the hospital less often. We want to make sure not only that they live healthy and fulfilled lives but also that we save money in the health care system. However, it is the case again that Conservatives are really only here for the lobbyists and never for everyday people—
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:24:04 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:24:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am aware that there will be about three minutes for my speech. I am not sure if the time carries forward or whether we are done debate, but if it does I will be splitting my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.
It is my pleasure to rise in this House. I want to put a little context around the pharmacare situation and, really, the economy in general. The future Liberal leader Mark Carney said that it is impossible to redistribute what one does not have. That is the very scenario that we find ourselves in.
Over the last nine years, we have experienced incredible fiscal and monetary, I might add, mismanagement of our economy. When the Liberals took the reins of power nine years ago, we had a balanced budget and we had a low GDP-to-debt ratio. Now, some nine years later, we have one of the worst debt-to-GDP ratios. We are looking at about 43%, in terms of debt-to-GDP ratio, which is shocking because the finance minister clearly said in 2022 that the government has a “fiscal anchor”, a line it shall not cross, and that the debt-to-GDP ratio would not increase.
Then what did it do? It went up. According to the PBO, who we heard from today, it is actually going to go up the next two years. Speaking of the PBO, I am not sure if anyone caught this because it was only audio, unfortunately, but members will not believe what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. He was getting challenged by Liberals for the error he made with respect to the calculation of the carbon tax, and what he said is that he actually knows his numbers are right because he has the numbers in front of him, the same numbers that the Liberals would not release to the public.
It is incredible. The PBO came out and said that he has their analysis, but he just cannot share it because the Liberals will not share it. They have a carbon tax analysis that shows six out of 10 Canadians pay more in carbon tax than they get back in rebate.
That being said, I will just sum up my three minutes with this comment from the great Margaret Thatcher. She said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.” We have hit that point. We are now paying more in interest than we are in health care transfers. Let us have a little common sense, the government cannot redistribute what it does not have. An obsession with redistribution to the extent that it is no longer focusing on growth will hurt everyone, most notably the most vulnerable.
469 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:27:16 p.m.
- Watch
It being 6:27 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, May 22, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:27:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:27:57 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 7:11:27 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 7:12:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, would it be possible to ask members to be quiet?
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 7:12:50 p.m.
- Watch
I would ask hon. members who are chatting in the House to please take their conversations to the lobby. We are beginning debate.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 7:13:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are celebrating pharmacare. It is—
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 7:13:11 p.m.
- Watch
We are beginning debate in the chamber, as the hon. member well knows.
The hon. member for Mirabel.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 7:13:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank you for your diligence. I also wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with none other than the Voltaire of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, if ever there were one, and possibly the only person in the House who is so bright that we have to wear shades.
As we know, the NDP has been cozying up to the Liberals for the past two years. That is why it is no surprise that, today, the NDP wants to talk about groceries and grocery prices. We must admit that, for once, the NDP's diagnosis is correct. Yes, there is significant food inflation. Yes, the grocery retail market is becoming increasingly concentrated. In many communities, there are very few businesses supplying food to vulnerable and dependent customers.
While they are obviously not monopolies, they have what is known in economics as significant “market power”. Let me say straight out that there is a fundamental competition problem in the grocery retail market. If I am not mistaken, Canada had 11 or 12 major grocery store chains in the early 1980s, in a country stretching from coast to coast to coast. Anyway, Quebec is still part of it. The future may be a different story. Back then, there were 11 or 12 players. Today, we have five major chains, all suspected of possible anti-competitive behaviour.
Obviously, they deny it. However, the recent case involving Glentel raises questions. It is jointly owned by Bell and Rogers, which struck a deal with Loblaw to secure a monopoly on cell phone plans sold in Loblaws stores. Not only is their behaviour anti-competitive, but even when these companies create new business models, they manage to innovate in ways that raise prices for vulnerable customers who depend on their products and services, and their margins are high.
The grocers say that they have it hard here in Canada and that consolidation and mergers and acquisitions are necessary because the margins are low. The profit margins in question are about 5%. Maybe in sectors where the risk is high, these margins are low. Today at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, we welcomed—
367 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 7:16:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, point of order.
It seems that several members did not listen to your reminder earlier. Even though my colleague is not far from me, I am having trouble hearing him.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
