SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 331 - Jun/13/24

M. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Jun/13/24 7:48:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals never stop asking us for more money. They always want more, more, more. We can agree on some things, but they have to be good and serve the needs of the people. It should not just be more money to buy a new pipeline. Oil and gas companies are already making billions of dollars in profits. They can buy their own pipelines. I would like to remind those tuning in about something very important. The largest infrastructure project in Canadian history is not designed to support health or education. No, it is a pipe for producing more oil for export to foreign markets. Canada, this great big, beautiful country, is an oil monarchy. Now, let me get back to the matter at hand. Before proposing further additional spending every three months, I would encourage this government to think about whether it needs to spend money on things that could be described as unnecessary or low priority. I am talking about spending that is not really in step with the needs and necessities brought on by the kinds of crises facing people in this country. We know that the supplementary estimates provide an overview of spending requirements that were not necessarily fleshed out when the main estimates were prepared, or that were clarified after the main estimates were tabled to take into account any changes that had occurred in certain programs and services. Either the Liberals planned their budget poorly with their colleagues, or they see us as cash cows and think we will pass all their future budgets, or else they are negotiating a little agreement on the back of a napkin to make sure that their government survives. I think the last option is the most likely scenario. These estimates present $12.7 billion in additional spending, raising budgetary expenditures for the year 2024-25 from $449 billion to over $461 billion. Voted budgetary spending will increase by $11.2 billion, or 5.8%, to $202.8 billion in voted appropriations alone. This does not include statutory expenditures. Those include a $1.9‑billion increase in public debt charges, primarily due to higher projected interest rates and higher borrowing requirements, broken down as follows: a $764‑million increase in interest on unmatured debt and $1.1 billion in other interest costs. It is a crazy amount of debt that exploded under this government. Why does the government continue to propose costly public policies in areas that do not even fall under its responsibility? The federal government is incapable of providing good, effective public services, with programs in areas under its own responsibility. Nevertheless, it keeps funding projects that contribute to global warming. Again, Trans Mountain cost $34 billion. The goal is to extract more oil and help oil and gas companies that do not need help because they are billionaires. Let us get into a detailed breakdown of these supplementary estimates. Basically, we can say that we agree with the way 80% of this roughly $11 billion will used, because it will go toward providing first nations, among others, with better health services, social services and better access to drinking water. Yes, I did indeed say drinking water. It is 2024, and Canada, an industrialized country that is part of the G7 and that has the largest reserve of drinking water in the world, is still incapable of providing people living on Canadian soil with drinking water. That is shameful. In contrast, we strongly criticize allocating $22 million for national honours to mark the transition of the Crown in Canada. Some people might think that there is a lot of support for the monarchy. However, over 70% of Quebeckers are against the monarchy. This government, which supports an archaic and undemocratic institution, is asking for an additional $3 million in funding to give out little crowns and medals bearing the image of a king. Apparently, a top priority for this government is handing out little medals adorned with the effigy of someone who does not even live here and who was not democratically elected. This country is not serious. It is completely out of touch with reality. I do not want Quebeckers to have to pay out of their own pockets for things that have very little impact on their reality and that are low on their list of priorities. I would like to remind the House that over 70% of Quebeckers think it is time to reconsider our ties with the monarchy and that the Quebec National Assembly has already ended the requirement to take an oath to the King. As we know, Canada and Quebec are two very different nations and will eventually be two very different countries. My Conservative colleagues say that they support common sense, but they are all about the monarchy. Members will recall that the former Harper government even renamed Her Majesty's ships. These people's offices are full of monarchy memorabilia: framed pictures, posters, calendars, playing cards. Here is some common sense: $25 million supported by the Liberal and Conservative parties. The NDP has the word “democratic” in its party name. However, we do not hear the NDP members speaking out against the monarchy. I am wondering why they are supporting an additional $3 million for medals. I guess that is also a priority for the NDP. On top of all that, there is an additional $66.8 billion that was not included in the estimates. That, along with other adjustments, bring total federal budget spending to $534.6 billion. I would like to highlight some increases that seem significant. At least, that is what the government says. Let us talk about science and evidence. Some parties are thought to be more or less supportive of science. Others say science is important, but apparently only when it suits them. Let me give the facts. There is $8 million for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and $400,000 for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which is not insignificant. However, these are small amounts. It is one step closer to the promise made by this government in light of a report tabled by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research about the Government of Canada's graduate scholarship and post-doctoral fellowship programs in particular. Is everybody sitting down? Twenty years is how long it has been since the federal government increased graduate scholarships by a single penny. We are not talking about painting walls in schools. For 20 years, students with the highest potential have been told that not one more penny is available for them. Science certainly must be a priority if scientists and future researchers could not get a penny more for 20 years. Despite it all, these two parties tell us that science and evidence are important. What a joke. When something is a priority, increasing financial support for it does not take 20 years. That is not what got them moving, despite all the pressure. However, historic progress has been made thanks to the work of the Bloc Québécois and my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Science and Research. We finally managed to increase the indexation of graduate scholarships. I would say in closing that there are some positives, if we look for them. The good things that will be improved also need to be acknowledged. Canada has been lagging way behind on research investment for the past 20 years. It was at the back of the pack in the G7 on investment as a share of GDP. The consequences are serious, particularly for graduation rates at the graduate level, but also for the students, the researchers who want to stay here in Canada. The proof is that Canada is the only G7 country to have lost researchers since 2016. There are certainly things we can accept in the supplementary estimates. There are other things that are not considered a priority. It is clear, once again, that the priorities are not always part of the current government's reality.

1366 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Jun/13/24 7:59:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate. Perhaps it is the late hour, but I find that the Conservatives, as well as the Bloc Québécois, are resorting to slogans and easy solutions. They are overlooking certain realities to convey a simplistic message. It is true that the federal debt is much higher than it was before the pandemic. Relative to GDP, the federal debt is still at a decent level compared to other G7 and G20 countries. The debt is quite high because of the expenses incurred during the pandemic, but also because of certain expenses that Quebeckers really appreciate. I am talking about dental care. The federal government sent money to the provinces, including Quebec, for child care. We know that—

129 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/24 8:00:10 p.m.
Watch

I invite the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis to ask his question.

13 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/13/24 8:00:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague oppose the fact that the federal government made these expenditures during the pandemic? Does he oppose the money transferred to Quebec for child care?

29 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Jun/13/24 8:00:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is not late for me. I am wide awake and alert, even without coffee. I will answer my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis's very simple and easy questions. He did not mention that Quebec has had its own child care program for 25 years. We did not wait for the federal government to give us money to do that. Now, he is waking up 25 years later and thinks this is important. If it were so important, why did the federal government not invest any money in this area over the past 25 years? My colleague is talking about a dental care program. He is leaving himself wide open again. The Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec already provides a dental care program. Yes, it could be improved. However, it has already been around for over 10 years. We did not wait for the federal government to implement that program. We could also talk about the pharmacare program. My colleague did not mention it, but Quebec has had a pharmacare program for 30 years. If my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis wants to convince me, then he will have to prove to me that the Canadian government can do things that the Quebec government cannot.

218 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/13/24 8:01:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy working with my colleague, but I do not understand the Bloc Québécois at all. The NDP forced the government to bring in a dental care program. Quebec is where the program is the most popular. The vast majority of dentists who joined this program are located in Quebec. In Canada, the largest group of people already using these dental care services are Quebeckers. The new program has only been operating for a few weeks, but it is popular. Tens of thousands of Quebeckers have already received dental care through the program. Why does the Bloc Québécois oppose a program that Quebeckers want?

115 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Jun/13/24 8:02:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to answer my colleague's questions. The New Democratic Party says it is democratic, but it defends the privatization of certain programs and approved a dental care program that is run by a private company, Sun Life. That was done with the support of the NDP. In the meantime, what we in the Bloc Québécois are asking for is not to not help the people who need supplementary dental care. We already have a program for that. The Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec runs that program. What we are asking for is to have our money to run our own program. We are not saying that it is not good to do this, but we want jurisdictions to be respected. Care, social services and health fall under the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. It is easy to understand. My colleague should understand that. A Constitution is something that is supposed to be democratic. I would remind the member that Quebec never signed it.

181 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Jun/13/24 8:03:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, hallelujah, the Bloc Québécois has seen the light. Its members have realized that it is important to read the supply documents. Does my Bloc Québécois colleague regret not voting against the previous budget allocations?

44 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/24 8:04:02 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has 15 seconds to respond.

18 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Jun/13/24 8:04:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, 15 seconds is not enough time to demonstrate that the common-sense plan makes no sense. When I asked a question earlier, the Conservative Party completely avoided talking about the monarchy and the $3 million being spent to hand out some little medals. I would like my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable to ask his constituents if they support that.

67 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Jun/13/24 8:04:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to split my time with the wonderful member for New Westminster—Burnaby. Tonight we debate a supply bill, and for those Canadians who may be watching, this is an important parliamentary vehicle that authorizes the spending of money to pay for government programs and services. It has been said that it is the primary duty of parliamentarians to scrutinize and authorize executive spending, and that is what we are doing here tonight. I would like to start with a few general observations about the economy and government. In the New Democrats' view, the economy is not a sterile entity. It is not a vague concept removed from human contact. It is instead a vital expression of our social activity. In other words, it is not something that we are to serve. The economy is something that, in New Democrats' view, should serve people and the citizens who make up our great country, and a budget is an expression to us of priorities. As President Joe Biden famously said before he was president, “Don't tell me [your values]. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you [your values].” I think those are wise words. There are very different values expressed in this Parliament. For the NDP, government is a positive force in society that is in place to serve Canadians. Among other things, one of the most important jobs of government is to deliver programs, services and resources that people need but are unable to provide on their own and that the marketplace is unable to deliver. To others, notably Conservatives in the House, government is something to be distrusted. It is something to be feared. It is something to be reduced to the greatest extent possible. To the NDP, the economy is something to be incentivized, to be nurtured and to be developed to serve people. That is the end of having a healthy economy. To others in the House, and I am thinking primarily of my Conservative colleagues, people's interests are often subservient to the economy, especially to corporations whose interests are generally to prevail over individuals, with the faith that, if we let corporations have their way, somehow or other, ordinary citizens will magically benefit. To the NDP, the budget is to spend the people's money in the best way possible to benefit Canadians and their families. To others, again, particularly Conservatives, spending is bad, and they believe that, essentially, people should be left to sink or swim on their own. The supply bill invokes several of these underlying concepts. The supply bill is part of broader appropriation acts this year that so far will propose to spend some $191 billion this year. Major expenditures of that $191 billion would include the following: $80 billion would be spent on Canada's seniors in elderly benefits; about $52 billion would take the form of health transfers to provinces so that Canadians can go to hospitals and their doctors to get the health care they need when they need it; and about $8 billion would be spent on indigenous reconciliation, services and justice. As my honourable colleague from Nunavut points out so powerfully in the House all the time, that is a fraction of the money that is needed to deal with the huge indigenous infrastructure deficit in this country. The supply bill that we are debating tonight would authorize approximately $128 billion of spending. What are some of the priorities that Canadians will get for that money? We can start with dental care. We made the dental care plan a condition of support of the Liberal government, and make no mistake, this is not a shared priority between the NDP and Liberals. The Liberals voted against dental care every chance they got until the NDP forced the Liberals to bring it in as a condition of our support for the government. So far, over two million Canadian seniors have enrolled in that dental care plan. Over 100,000 seniors have already gone to the dentist. I was in a denturist office just yesterday when I was told moving stories of seniors who had not been to the dentist in many years. They had had terrible pain and suffering in their mouths, and they were getting, for the first time, their dentures they needed to help them have proper nutrition and to take care of their health. On June 28, in a matter of two weeks, every child under the age of 18 in this country, in families that make under $90,000 a year and do not have the benefit of a private employer dental care plan, just as every person in the House has, will be able to sign up for this plan, including people living with disabilities. That will add millions more Canadians to the Canadian dental care plan. Ultimately, we are seeing the beginning of the first, most expansive expansion of public health in this country in half a century. This will see nine million Canadians able to get the primary oral health care they need and deserve, which they have not had for six years. I would tell my Bloc colleagues that provinces, including Quebec, have not proven competent in providing this service to Canadians, even though there are certain programs in provinces. Obviously, millions of Canadians are not covered for this, and the NDP has made sure those people will have the same access as members do. This bill would provide $1.5 billion for pharmacare. As I pointed out, this is a historic first in this country. For the first time ever, through a single-payer system, Canadians will be able to walk into pharmacies and walk out with the diabetes medication and devices and contraception devices and medication they need without paying for them directly, just like all of our other necessary and essential health care costs. In terms of diabetes medications, pretty much every single medication necessary for a type 1 diabetic and almost everything for a type 2 diabetic would be covered by this plan, as well as continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, test strips and syringes and needles. For contraceptives, it is not only contraceptive medications by prescription, but also devices, including IUDs. That is an extraordinary measure that would help liberate women, providing them with free agency and control over their health. There is $1 billion over five years that will be established for a school nutrition program. Canada is the only G7 country that does not have some form of universal access to school nutrition, and this, by the way, is not anywhere near enough. This plan would only cover a fraction of the children that go to school from grades 1 to 8 in this country, but it is a start. This is something the New Democrats also demanded. I want to turn to housing. The housing crisis is robbing young people in this country of their hope for the future, and we are saddling our children with challenges that the generations before them did not face. Owning a home seems increasingly unattainable. Building a life and a family of their own appears increasingly unaffordable. To New Democrats, our children deserve a world of promise and possibility. The Prime Minister claimed before that housing is not his responsibility, but has failed to acknowledge the fact that it was the Liberals who walked away from this federal responsibility in the first place, and it was Conservatives who removed social spending from the CMHC out of housing a generation ago. Today, Canada's stock of non-market housing is among the lowest across the OECD peers, at just 3.5% of total dwellings. As a consequence of successful Conservative and Liberal neglect, Canada now finds itself decades behind. Because the Conservatives and Liberals have abandoned the federal government's position in housing, encampments are expanding across the country at record levels. The financialization of housing has left one-third of all seniors' housing in Canada in the hands of institutional investors, as well as 30% of purpose-built rental buildings. Young people are being shut out of the housing market, renters are losing hope of ever owning a home, and rent and mortgage payments are devouring an unbelievably high share of people's incomes. We need to build some nine million homes over the next 10 years. International evidence demonstrates that it is only with direct financing of non-market housing, such as co-operative, non-profit and public housing, that we will meet this challenge. This budget goes some distance in addressing that need. By the way, public spending on housing is anti-inflationary. It expands supply and puts downward pressure on prices across the housing market. I will conclude by saying that New Democrats are supporting this budget and supply bill because we believe the federal government needs to invest in Canadians and provide the conditions so that all Canadians can thrive and prosper in this economy. That is core to New Democrat values, and we are proud of those values.

1517 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Jun/13/24 8:14:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in his intervention, the member referenced the spending of people's money. I understand that to the extent of present Canadian taxpayers. We can talk about the amounts, but my question is about the present federal debt of $1.255 million and the ongoing deficits. Who are the people whose money is being spent? My four children are all taxpaying citizens right now. Is he referring to my grandchildren who are not paying taxes yet? Are those the people he is referring to?

85 words

Mr. Don Davies

Jun/13/24 8:15:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always somewhat ironic when a Conservative rises in the House and talks about responsible government spending. In 2008, the Department of Finance analyzed the spending of every government of every hue and at every level in Canada since 1867, and found that it was New Democratic governments that balanced their budget the highest percentage of times. That is not an ideological statement; it is a matter of fact that the member can check. I was in the House from 2008 to 2015, when there were eight consecutive Conservative deficits in a row, so I do not think we will take any lectures from Conservatives about responsible government spending or the impact of deficits and debt on Canadians. It is the New Democrats who actually have the best record in that regard.

135 words

Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)

Jun/13/24 8:16:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member's statement, I was struck a number of times really about the concept of the privilege of paying taxes. I want to echo the fact that I believe that we should pay our taxes and that they should be paid in the fairest way possible based on the income and assets we have. I want to get the member's understanding of how fairness in our tax system is our privilege to have what we have to share with others.

87 words

Mr. Don Davies

Jun/13/24 8:16:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that the phrase “Taxes are [the price] we pay for [living in a] civilized society” is quite apt. I would say that for New Democrats, there are a number of really important concepts that underpin our approach to taxes. One is that they should be progressive, which means that if we have to raise money for the government we should do so in a fair way and according to the ability of people to pay. That means having a sliding scale and taking proportionally more money from those who are wealthy. The other concept is this: The 1966 Carter commission famously said, “A buck is a buck [is a buck].” That means we should be taxing income fairly. Therefore I believe that it is unfair for a nurse, a mechanic or a teacher to be taxed on 100% of their income and pay a higher tax rate than someone who makes their money by trading stocks and bonds or selling capital projects and pays tax on only a portion of their income. That is why I support the measures taken in the budget to address that.

196 words

Democrats

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Jun/13/24 8:18:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I want to make one important point clear to him right off the bat. A denturist called me last week and said that the federal dental care program was a flop. He cannot get reimbursed, so he is going to drop out of the program. He has spoken with some colleagues who told him that no one was using the program because it is not working. Canada health transfers, which should normally be at 50%, are currently at 22%. In my colleague's opinion, should Ottawa not have kept them at 50%, allowing us to improve an existing structure, namely the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec? Is that not what should have been done instead of outsourcing a dental care program to a private company, Sun Life?

143 words

Mr. Don Davies

Jun/13/24 8:18:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I share my hon. colleague's position that the federal government should be shouldering its fair share of health care in this country. Successive Conservative and Liberal governments have whittled it down to about 22%. I agree with him that the slide should be reversed and that we should be going back up toward the 50% federal-provincial agreement that underpinned the formation of medicare. I will tell the member that dental care is not a flop. I will give him 100,000 reasons if he wants, because that is the number of people who have been to the dentist under the plan. He should tell them that it is a flop. He should tell the 10,000 dental professionals in this country who have signed up for the plan that it is a flop. When people can get their teeth fixed and take care of their mouth, that is an incredible accomplishment in this country. It is something that New Democrats are proud of and that I think will stand the test of time. We will be looking back at this time 10, 20 or 30 years from now with the same pride as when the New Democrats started health care in this country.

207 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/13/24 8:19:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway. He mentioned that NDP governments have the best financial management track records, and that is important. The NDP also delivers results. We are not the party of tax havens or billionaires. We are the party that invests in ordinary people. I found my Bloc Québécois colleague's last comment a bit ridiculous because the dental care program has been the most successful in Quebec. More people in Quebec are benefiting from the dental care program than anywhere else in Canada, and more dentists in Quebec are participating in the program than anywhere else. The Bloc Québécois can say that the dental care program is not working, but the facts say otherwise. To date, 200,000 people, particularly seniors in Quebec, have received dental care. The reality is that the NDP is the party that has gotten the most results in Parliament in recent months. Members of the Bloc Québécois have not accomplished much. The NDP got pharmacare. This bill is now in the Senate. When we look at dental care, the grocery rebate and affordable housing, we see that the NDP caucus has been far more effective than any of the other parties in the House. The members of the NDP are the real worker bees in the House of Commons. We do things to help people and we are seeing results in Quebec, of course, but also in British Columbia and across the country. The main estimates are an opportunity to talk about financial management. As my colleague for Vancouver Kingsway said so eloquently, the NDP does have the best record of managing money and paying down debt with NDP provincial governments. We have not formed a federal government yet, but that that is coming. NDP provincial governments have simply outperformed, in fiscal management, Conservative and Liberal governments, and even governments like those of the Parti Québécois. The reality is that is our record, and we are proud of it. More importantly, the NDP gets its good fiscal management record by not giving away money to billionaires, banks, oil and gas CEOs and lobbyists, which is, critically, what Liberals and Conservatives have done since Confederation. The NDP takes a different approach, which is why we are so effective in helping people. The main estimates are also a report card for all members of Parliament to basically report back on what they have done since we started the session in the fall, because when we get to the main estimates, we know that there are only a few days left in the session. Let us talk about that. What can Conservative MPs say that they have done for their constituents over the course of the last nine months? It is not much. In fact, a Conservative member would have difficulty pointing to a single accomplishment that Conservative MPs have done for their constituents. Let us talk about what the New Democrats have done. We got the grocery rebate, which has made a difference for about 11 million lower-income Canadians, as part of a doubling of the GST rebate. That has made a difference for constituents. We can also talk about the school lunches, part of the recent budget and something the NDP campaigned on, that the member for Vancouver Kingsway campaigned on. As a result of it, hundreds of thousands of school children who could not learn because they went to school hungry will be getting school lunches. That is another accomplishment of the NDP. We can talk about the anti-scab legislation that helps workers in the federal jurisdiction who are fighting for better wages and better health and safety conditions. Up until now, they have consistently had Conservatives and Liberals refusing to put in place legislation to ban replacement workers. If they were locked out or went on strike, they had no recourse. However thanks to the NDP, there is now anti-scab legislation in this country. How about dental care? It is the biggest hit of any government program in years, with over 200,000 seniors having already accessed dental services. We can do the math: It means that in each and every Conservative riding, there are 500 or 600 seniors who have already gotten dental care, and not thanks to the Conservatives, because the Conservatives did everything they could to block those programs, but thanks to the NDP. Yes, those seniors will be thinking, “Why am I electing a Conservative MP when they do not do anything for me? The NDP has been fighting for me. The member for Burnaby South has been fighting for me and maybe I should be looking at the NDP.” Of course, they would be showing good judgment in doing that because the reality is that the NDP delivered dental care. This is something that Conservatives and Liberals refused to do. In fact a few years ago, Conservatives and Liberals voted against the dental care program that the NDP put forward, but in a minority Parliament, the member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus fought, and now hundreds of thousands of seniors have had dental care already. Millions of seniors have signed up, and we know that in about a week and a half, people with disabilities and families with kids under 18 will be able to access dental care as well. By the beginning of July, all dentists will be eligible to be part of the program. Wow, what an accomplishment that is. Can Conservative MPs point to anything they have done over the last 10 months? No, but the NDP can also point to that. How about clean energy jobs? Members will recall that Conservatives fought, tooth and nail, the clean-energy jobs program of the NDP that we fought for and got through the House. As a result, good, well-paying, unionized jobs in the clean energy sector will be coming in the coming months because of the NDP. How about pharmacare? People with diabetes are often paying $1,000 to $1,500 a month for their diabetes medication and devices. Conservatives said, “Oh, we do not give a damn about them.” However, Canadians want to have the program, and the NDP fought hard. Now the pharmacare bill is through the House and is in the Senate. We are pushing senators in the other place to please adopt the legislation because it would mean that up to six million Canadians who have diabetes would have their medication covered. There are Canadians who need contraception. For women's reproductive rights and freedoms, this is absolutely crucial. They would have access to contraception, and again this is because of the NDP. How about affordable housing? Well, affordable housing is something that Conservatives slashed. Over the dismal, terrible Harper regime, the worst government in Canadian history, food bank lineups doubled. Housing prices doubled. People would say that the same things happened under the Liberals, who continued a lot of Conservative policies, and that is true. However, Conservatives are responsible for half the problem and they should be standing up and apologizing to Canadians for not doing what was required then, as Liberals should be apologizing for not doing what is required now. However, in a minority Parliament, the NDP forced the government finally to invest in affordable housing, and we know that affordable housing units are starting to be built now. In the coming months, there will be more and more affordable housing that is based on 30% of income as opposed to the massive rental prices people are paying. Affordable housing will be coming to neighbourhoods right across the country. Regarding health care funding, the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Harper government slashed health care funding, which has led to the crisis that we are seeing today because Liberals, when they came to power, decided they were not going to restore the health care funding that Conservatives cut. Thanks to the NDP, we are now seeing an increase in health care funding across the country, and that is going to make a difference in the quality of life of our health care professionals and of Canadians who have health care issues and go into the hospital. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that we now have in place the first steps of universal single-payer pharmacare means that when patients leave acute care hospitals, they will actually have access to their medication. Members of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions tell us that hundreds of Canadians die every year because they cannot afford to pay for their medication. Every other country that has universal health care has universal pharmacare. Thanks to Tommy Douglas and the NDP, we have universal health care. Thanks to the current leader, the member for Burnaby South, and the NDP, we are now looking at the start of universal pharmacare, which means patients will be able to continue to live long and healthy lives. Therefore school lunches, grocery rebates, anti-scab legislation, dental care, clean-energy jobs, pharmacare, affordable housing and health care funding are all thanks to the NDP.

1540 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.)

Jun/13/24 8:30:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a lot about dental care, something that is in the estimates we are debating here now. Earlier this evening, I asked Conservatives if they would cut dental care out of the estimates, and they claimed that dental care does not exist, that thousands of Canadians who have had access to a dentist just do not exist. How does the hon. member feel about Conservatives wanting to take away this critical health care from our seniors?

81 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/13/24 8:30:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is all part of the delusions of the member for Carleton. “It is all a mirage”, they are saying to Canadians across the country, as hundreds of thousands of seniors are getting dental care, often for the first time. The member for Carleton says that it is all a mirage, that they are not getting dental care, as they sit in the dentist chair, as they actually have the dentist provide them with the care, as the oral hygienist provides them with care, as the denturist provides them with care. The Conservatives' response and the member for Carleton's response is that it is all a mirage, that they are not living in reality and that they should live the Conservative reality, where dental care does not exist. I prefer to live in real life.

140 words