House Publications

     Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition. This return will be tabled in an electronic format.

     While I am on my feet, I move:

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

    Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

     moved that Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

     He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise.

    I want to start by extending gratitude to the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his extraordinary work throughout this process. It was a long, hard discussion to find a place of meeting, but it is an example of what is possible when we, in this chamber, focus on getting things done and focus on working together, rather than focusing on what divides us. I think that sometimes we fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of democracy, which is to build consensus, to find points of commonality and to pull people together to find common ground; it is not to find differences or to sow division.

    I also want to thank so many phenomenal colleagues on our side who have dedicated, in some cases, decades to fight for the moment when people are not forced to make a choice between the medication they need to stay healthy or the essential goods and services they need to stay alive, whether that be their rent or their food.

    In the 1960s, we launched national medicare, but we forget how challenging that was. It was an incredibly turbulent period to actualize it and to bring it to reality. The dream had long existed, but to bring it to bear was extraordinarily difficult. However, at that moment in time, there were certain things left out, one of which was medicine. That was partially because, at that point in time, the number of medications available were very limited. They were typically prescribed in a hospital setting. They did not have the uses and abilities, and they were not as essential as they are today. Certainly, that dynamic has changed, and this means a new dawn for health.

    I am going to talk specifically about pharmacare and the legislation therein, but before I do, I will paint a broader picture of the circumstances it faces.

    Like all countries, everywhere in the world, the vast complexity of our health systems is overwhelming. We are driving down a highway at a 100 kilometres an hour, recognizing that we cannot slow down, and we have to change the engine while we are driving. Due to that difficulty, most health systems had not done the hard work of transformation, of really stepping back and looking upstream at how we deal with prevention and deal with reducing the amount of chronic disease and illness that exists within our system.

    Then the pandemic hit, and in the pandemic, everywhere in the world, the strains and cracks in our health system were laid bare. Health care workers were asked to carry a burden that was impossibly large, working night and day to try to keep their communities safe, and carrying a load beyond imagining. However, in that moment, here in Canada and in a few places elsewhere in the world, we saw something I think quite remarkable happen, which was that in that chaos, there was one purpose in our system. Doctors, nurses and personal support care workers showed us the possibility of what happens when we move with one purpose, with one direction, and when we focus on people's health and nothing else. We could set aside egos, jurisdiction and turf, and we could make things happen. In an incredibly brief period of time, Canada's pandemic response was indeed one of the best in the world with one of the lowest death rates anywhere in the world. We had unbelievable support for the people working within the system and for one another for that period of time.

     Then, challenges resumed. The pandemic began to recede. A war erupted in Europe. Global financial turmoil ensued. We forgot the lessons of the fruits of co-operation and of working together, and many of those divisions returned. Within our health system, we saw a workforce who had carried far too much and was dealing with burnout, yet still had the extraordinary weight of a system that needs to change. We saw, for the population, that health was a bit of a hot plate. People's experience of the pandemic was trauma, really, for everybody. It was especially so for health care workers, but nobody was saved from the traumatic experience of going through the pandemic.

    I would say that it is the responsibility of not just this government, but also every government in this country to remember the incredible heroism of those who were working in the health workforce during those dark hours of the pandemic, and with that same spirit of co-operation and determination, to not focus on what divides us or what makes us different, but to focus on what can be done. That is no more important in any area than it is in health. Canadians do not care much about what political party someone is from. They do not care much about whose jurisdiction it is; they want to see results.

    That is why the $200 billion that we put forward to invest in health care over the next 10 years was so critical. It required an agreement with every single province and every single territory to develop a plan to deal with the crisis of today, to tackle those issues within our health system around the workforce, the backlogs, the health data and the sharing of patient information, to deal with issues like administrative backlogs, things that are legacies that do not make sense, and to work with every province and territory, regardless of its stripe.

    Whether it was Adriana LaGrange in Alberta, Adrian Dix in B.C, Michelle Thompson in Nova Scotia or Bruce Fitch in New Brunswick, and so forth, in every instance, that spirit of co-operation pervaded our negotiations. There was a profound understanding in those conversations that we have to be bigger than our partisanship and have to find commonality. As a result, we have had extraordinary agreements signed with all the provinces and territories, in a short period of time, to lay out the next number of years and to see what that health transformation will look like.

    That spirit of co-operation was also seen in Charlottetown, where we were able to have an agreement on some things that are really essential: health data; looking toward interoperability and how our systems work together with a digital charter; reducing wait times for recognition of foreign credentials, taking it down to a 90-day service standard. We were also able to work later with the College of Physicians and Surgeons to take a process of credential recognition that is normally a couple of years and were able to get it down to a couple of months.

    The other thing these agreements and conversations did, which I think is critically important for the future of our health system, was to establish common indicators, meaning that every province will have the same indicators for their health system, so that whether someone is a Quebecker in Quebec or a Manitoban in Manitoba, one can see how their health system is faring, not by anecdote but in data, and that can be compared against other provinces. Making sure those indicators are there is essential. It is so important that people feel that positive change, that they experience it in outcomes and that it is also measurable in data.

    In our federation, as we are making changes and interventions, that ability to have data and to see how we are moving the needle is essential. What one measures, one achieves. For the first time in these health agreements, we have set these essential tools of measurement to be a key component of our health system.

    We can then turn to dental care. There are some who say that this is just a boutique intervention, something that is a one-off, but it is actually part of a broader vision of health. Imagine that in this country there are nine million people today who do not have access to dental care. I want to thank my predecessor, the former minister of health, now the minister of procurement, the hon. member for Québec, for his extraordinary work to get us to this point in dental care. I want to thank the NDP and the member for Vancouver Kingsway for their work with our caucus in a common purpose to make sure that we pull together over health.

    Mr. Peter Julian: Hear, hear! Thanks to the NDP.

    Hon. Mark Holland: Yes, I want to thank parliamentary co-operation.

    Madam Speaker, I would say to this place that this is what we were intended to do. When we were elected as members of Parliament, we are not here to shout things at each other, to belittle each other or to put each other down. We are here to listen to each other. The purpose of debate is to ensure that we take each other's ideas and that we find common ground. In this bill, Bill C-64, in pharmacare and in dental care, we are embodying exactly what I believe our constituents elected us to do.

    Right now, we have 1.8 million seniors who, in many cases, have never had access to oral health care in their lives. I talked to a denturist who knew a senior who has not had new dentures for 50 years. They lost their dentures and had no money to replace them. The denturist talked about the dignity and the way that senior felt, knowing that they were going to get new teeth and that they could go out in the world, feeling that somebody cared about them. Let us think of the extraordinary nature of that.

    When going to seniors homes and when talking to people who work with seniors, they ask if this is really going to happen. They talk about the dignity that comes from it. It is not only about that healthy smile or that they are not going to wind up in an emergency room for an avoidable procedure, but also about the dignity of saying that we care about them, that we see them and that their health matters.

    We have one of the most extraordinary health care systems in the world, but it cannot be the best health care system in the world unless oral health is part of the equation. When we do not take care of oral health, when we are not there for oral health, then the costs, not just in terms of social justice but also in terms of health outcomes, are entirely unacceptable. I would submit that is not the country we want to live in.

    I am also extraordinarily proud that, about two weeks ago, the Minister of Families, with many of us there, launched the national food program. When I was at the Heart and Stroke Foundation, I advocated for fiercely for that, knowing when a child goes to school hungry, it is impossible to learn, and when a child is denied nutrition, it has devastating effects on their health. It is so sad to say that the research shows just one healthy meal a day has a dramatic change on health outcomes for children. The other thing it does is to give kids a taste for what nutritious food is. They develop their palates, and for their whole lives, their nutrition and nutritional profile is changed.

    An essential part of being upstream and avoiding illness and sickness is dental care, a national food program and, yes, action on pharmacare. This is a big task. We know that some 21% of Canadians are struggling to meet the financial burden of being able to afford their medicines. We took essential action on bulk purchasing, reducing the cost of medicine in this country by hundreds of millions of dollars, by working with provinces and territories to do bulk purchasing.

    We are taking critical action in P.E.I., with a plan for Islanders, on a pilot basis, to improve affordable access to prescription drugs. Since June 1, 2023, we have been able to reduce copays to five dollars for almost 60% of medications regularly used by Islanders. P.E.I. residents have saved more than $2 million in out-of-pocket costs. This was a precursor to show us what could happen. Whether one goes to P.E.I. or other provinces, and I know that the member for Malpeque talks a lot about this, they will hear about the difference it is making in the lives of people, having medication taken off the table as a concern. It is absolutely huge.

    We also launched, in March 2023, a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases, with an investment of $1.5 billion over three years because we know that drugs for rare diseases can be cripplingly expensive, yet they are absolutely vital to keep people alive.

    I will give one quick story before I talk about the bill in front of us and about the action we are taking. I had an opportunity a few weekends ago to be in the United States with my partner. We watched someone in front of us collapse. That person was obviously not a person of means. As they came to and I called 911, the thing that person was worried about was not their health, but it was how much money they were going to have to spend. How much money did my call to 911 burden that person with?

    We do not want to be in a place, with any element of health care, where somebody of limited financial means, through no fault of their own, is in a circumstance that they cannot afford care, or where nurses on the front lines, taking care of patients and investing their entire lives in trying to make things better, are not given the opportunity to get proper health care for themselves.

    Why these drugs? Why did we start with diabetes medication and with universal contraceptives? Let me start with diabetes medication. I want to thank the member for Brampton South for her fantastic advocacy on diabetes specifically. There are 3.7 million Canadians, and it is a growing number, who have diabetes. When I had a conversation in Ottawa with 12-year-old Raina, she summed it up better than anybody else. She said that as a 12-year-old it is really hard in this world, and that no 12-year-old should have to worry about all the problems of the world and also how they are going to afford their medication. If 12-year-old Raina can get it, then this House can get it.

    When a person does not have access to their diabetes medication, it means they risk heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, blindness and amputation. I was talking to Sarah in a diabetes clinic, who told me about patients who were reusing syringes because they could not afford them. The risk of blood-borne disease is terrible. That is not the country we should live in, so we all need to rise to this moment to say that for people with a precursor disease like diabetes, which is so indicative of whether they will have future chronic disease and illness, it is essential that we are there with medication for people.

    On contraceptives, let me just give one example that illustrates the case. Oral contraceptives cost $25 a month and have a 9% failure rate. The IUD costs about $500, lasts five years and has a failure rate of 0.2%. What it means is that a person who does not have money ends up choosing the birth control option that is cheaper, which has a 9% fail rate and means they are more likely to wind up with an unwanted pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease if they are not able to make the choices that give them autonomy over their own body and their reproductive health and future.

    Therefore, it is absolutely essential, and not only for health. For example, in British Columbia, it has been demonstrated by UBC that it is saving more money with this initiative than it costs to roll it out. That is similar to what we are going to see in diabetes. This has such a powerful effect in prevention that it actually reduces costs overall.

    The message it sends to women about their bodies and about their sexual and reproductive rights and autonomy is essential, which is that in this country, no matter where she is, a women will get what she needs to have control over her future and her body. That is a powerful statement, and it goes beyond just contraceptives as a drug.

    As a very young person, when I was very, very young, I was exposed to sexual violence. That experience, in a family that did not talk about sex and did not have a conversation about what healthy sexual relationships were, had a devastating effect on my life, my self-esteem and my ability to stand up for myself at different moments in my life. It is difficult for somebody who does not have the information about their sexual health, who is not told that sex would never have anything to do with violence, that violence is about control and sex is about connection, that sex should always be consensual, should never be exploitive, should never involve violence and should always involve what a person wants for their body, that it should be pleasurable and it should make them feel like themselves.

    As a health minister, it should not be in any way controversial for me to say those things to people. Whether a person is in a marriage or intersecting for the first time with somebody else sexually, they need to understand it is okay to be themselves and that as long as it conforms to those things, such as that sex should be pleasurable and that one should be empowered in one's body and have access to the reproductive medicines one needs to make choices about one's life, it is going to save lives, because the second-leading cause of death for young people is suicide. We lose about 500 kids every single year, and way too often it has to do with them not feeling comfortable in their own bodies. We have to end that.

    In totality, looking at all of these actions, this is a new dawn for health, dealing with the crisis of now and also looking at prevention, so that we can build on what we started in the 1960s and ensure that all Canadians have access to the greatest health care system in the world.

    Madam Speaker, those were interesting comments from the Minister of Health. He talked about the incredible results that he thinks he is getting with these new programs. Oddly enough, the backlogs for care in Canada have never been worse: It is 27 and a half weeks from the time of seeing a primary care provider to getting treatment from a specialist, the worst it has been in 30 years.

    With regard to the Canada dental care program, he wants to talk about how many people have signed up for it. Although we know he will go on with the fantastical speech he has made here in his incredibly fact-devoid fantasy, the question that would remain for his great dental care program is this: How many dentists have actually signed up for the program?

    Very specifically, how many dentists in Atlantic Canada and, specifically, how many in each province of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and P.E.I. have signed up for the dental care program?

    Madam Speaker, it was true in the 1960s and it is true now, that there are purveyors of doom.

    There are those who try to push people to despair. When one does not believe in a public health care system, what does one want people to do? One wants people to despair, because nothing comes from despair. All change comes from looking at what is hard and true and driving for change.

    Let us talk very specifically. Every health care system in the world is facing extraordinary backlogs as a result of COVID and stress on their system. It is a question how we meet that. These 13 agreements and these investments of $200 billion are demonstrating that we are meeting that challenge. In these plans, in articulated detail, is exactly how we are going to get to the health system Canadians deserve.

    With respect to dental care, we have thousands and thousands of dentists who have signed up across the country.

    Secondly, just on Thursday, I met with the dental associations, and I can tell the House that we are down to a couple of minor issues and that I am extraordinarily confident that over the next number of months, we will see virtually every dental office in the country participating in this program.

    Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about a lot of things. I feel he spoke very little about Bill C-64. However, when we talk to him about Quebec’s interests, he rises in the House and always says that the Bloc Québécois is looking for a fight. Quebec has been administering a mixed drug insurance plan for the past 28 years, but the minister never sat down with Quebec before making his announcement to see how Quebec manages this and how much it might cost.

     Does the minister know how many prescription drugs are covered by Quebec’s drug insurance? Has he sat down with the health minister, who says that Quebec does have constitutional rights? When the minister says we are looking for a fight, he should add the word “constitutional”. It is as though we Bloc members have more respect for Canada’s Constitution than he does, despite his party having done all it could to prevent Quebec from signing the Constitution in 1982. Is he aware that the minister wants nothing to do with his pharmacare plan as proposed?

    Madam Speaker, there is no denying that Quebeckers’ interests are absolutely the same as those of everyone else in the country. Everyone wants access to a health care system that works properly for all.

     As for the questions surrounding drug insurance, I have had some really good conversations with Minister Dubé in Quebec. There is a clear spirit of co-operation.

     If one goes looking for a fight or problems, they are easy to find, but the idea is to find solutions and a way to work together to resolve the situation, to improve people’s health across the country. For example, it is absolutely essential that we take into account the indicators for Quebeckers, so that we can compare and contrast how things evolve in their system and how they evolve in the other provinces and territories. This is a very good thing to do, and it is also good to see where the federal money is in the plan. That is why it is more important to co-operate than to pick a fight.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister for working attentively with the effective NDP opposition to actually bring about this historic debate today. It is going to make a difference, on average, and I point this out to the Conservatives, to 18,000 constituents in each of the Conservative ridings across the country.

    I wanted to reference one of my constituents, a Burnaby, B.C. resident, Amber Malott. She learned she had diabetes when she fell into a coma just before her 21st birthday. With all of the types of insulin and injections that she takes, her monthly bill on insulin because of her diabetes is close to $900. We saw last week the disgraceful exhibit of Conservatives blocking even bringing this bill forward to the House. They blocked it from the kind of debate we need to have on this bill. Conservatives have indicated they would like to destroy this initiative.

    What would be the impact on people like Amber if the Conservatives had their way?

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. House leader for the NDP. I am very pleased to work with him again in his role as the critic for health. He is absolutely right. I appreciate that these were not always easy conversations. They were indicative of the conversations we had when we were both House leaders. Finding that common ground, as two different parties, is often difficult.

    I think, for people like Amber, we can see what the difference is. The cost consequence for Amber of not being able to have access to the life-changing medication she needs, let us be very direct, could be devastating. It could mean that Amber winds up with a heart attack or stroke. It could mean that she has a limb amputated or that she dies. It certainly means that Amber is less productive, less able to contribute to society and almost definitely going to have an earlier death. The cost of not providing that medication is far superseded by those negative outcomes, not just as a matter of social justice but as a matter of material cost.

    Are the Conservatives going to be there for Amber? Are they going to be there for people who need their diabetes medication? Are they going to vote for their constituents who need these medications, or are they going to vote against them?

    Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that is bringing forward new national programs like child care, student nutrition, a dental plan and pharmacare. It has been decades since a government in this country has moved forward with such massive programs. In fact, we have not seen this type of movement for many decades. I would like to ask the minister about the relationship we have with the provinces and territories as we move forward.

    As you move forward, what has been the response by some of the key people, like ministers and stakeholders in other provinces, for this specific plan?

    I will remind the hon. member to speak through me, please.

    The hon. Minister of Health.

    Madam Speaker, I thank the member and my friend for an important question. I have been so encouraged by the conversations that I am having with every provincial health minister across the country, regardless of their stripe. Whether I am talking to Everett Hindley in Saskatchewan or Uzoma in Manitoba, the conversations have been incredibly productive and positive. They are focused on how we get people the care they need.

    I would challenge the Conservative opposition. They talk about wanting to destroy dental, how they do not want pharmacare and how they are going to block the national food program. They tell people not to dream about it and that they cannot have it. They tell people not to dream that they can get medication. They say not to dream that they can have dental care. The Conservatives are going to make sure it does not work. They are going to call dentists and scare them. They are going to give them false information. They are going to work against people getting care, for political reasons.

    I think we should listen very carefully to what the Conservatives say. Are they asking questions about how they can help or how they can ensure that people get dental care? Are they asking questions about the problems that dentists have and how we can help fix them because they want to make sure people get dental care? No, they are saying to give up and have despair, and that they cannot do it. Shame on them for it.

    Madam Speaker, hopefully today we will move into reality as opposed to the fantasyland that has been painted by the Minister of Health.

    When we look at it, the pharmacare program that is being introduced is really about the preservation of the costly coalition. We also know that Canadians are not going to be fooled by the foolishness that has been presented in the House this morning. We know that the other plan its members have is to clearly extend the date of an election so they can access their pensions. The worst state of being a politician one could possibly imagine is to be self-serving, when all of us who come to the House know we should be here for the benefit of Canadians. That is clearly not the case with the costly coalition members. Rather, it is about their preservation, which they have made very clear throughout Canada, which is an essential part of their ability to keep this inept government in power for as long as they have. That is the first part that Canadians, of course, are well aware of.

    The other thing that Canadians are well aware of is the state of coverage with respect to pharmacare.

    My Bloc Québécois colleagues are well aware that pharmacare falls squarely within provincial jurisdiction.

    We know that 97.2% of Canadians are already eligible for some form of prescription drug coverage, which is not some funny Conservative talking point. It comes from Stats Canada, CIHI, CLHIA and the Conference Board of Canada. Therefore, when we look at the numbers, it becomes very simple to understand that there is a gap of about 1.1 million Canadians who struggle without coverage for pharmacare. I think it is important to point that out because we are attempting to have an honest conversation here.

    We also know that the numbers of those who are uninsured have decreased precipitously since, for instance, the Ontario government introduced OHIP+. It is also interesting that the minister talked a bit about his historic meetings with all the provincial ministers of health, which I also chose to undertake myself. When I did, what those provincial ministers of health made clear was not the rubbish the federal minister brought forward, but that they in no way, shape or form want another large federal program dropped on their heads to fund, which, as I said in French, is clearly a provincial area of responsibility, the delivery of health care. Oddly enough, the federal Minister of Health himself pointed out that the delivery of health care is a provincial responsibility and not that of the federal government, despite the fact he continues to intervene in moving the responsibility from the provincial authority to the federal government.

    I did have an opportunity to mention this bill, and I would like to expand upon that. The bill would create another government agency, which is exactly what Canadians would like to have, more bureaucracy and more gatekeeping. It would create the Canadian drug agency, which would cost about $90 million to create and perhaps another $30 million or $35 million a year to continue to exist as time goes on. However, who worries about monetary policy? It is certainly not the NDP-Liberal coalition.

    It is also odd that the government posted on its Canada.ca website a list of drugs, diabetic drugs and contraceptives that may or may not represent what would actually be on the formulary in the future because we know it would be the responsibility of the Canadian drug agency, in consultation with provinces and other stakeholders, to create a formulary to be used.

    I think it is also important to point out that, if we are to have any faith whatsoever, which I personally do not, in the formulary that has been put out thus far, much to the chagrin of Canadians, it is rife with older medications, with no fees for pharmacists or the primary care provided by pharmacists to many Canadians because of the sad reduction in the number of family physicians. It is also worth noting, very specifically, that the blockbuster drug in treatment of diabetes in a generation, namely Ozempic, is not included. There is no surprise there.

    As I was saying, after the creation of the Canadian drug agency and a formulary, and after holding these consultations, the only consultations that have happened thus far, of course, are with the NDP costly coalition partners, which should not give Canadians any warming in their hearts.

     When we look at the other issues that are clearly brewing in Canada at the current time, Canadians know that the state of our beloved health care system has been under siege by the inept management of the NDP-Liberal coalition. We know that wait times have surged beyond what they have ever been in history. For instance, the wait time from seeing a family physician to a specialist to obtaining specialist-based treatment has increased 195% to a 27-week wait time. This is the longest it has been in three decades. Is this a system that Canadians should be proud of?

    The other disturbing statistic is that 6.5 million Canadians are without access to primary care. As time will march forward, as it always does, by 2030, in Ontario alone, the 2.3 million Ontarians currently without access will surge to four million Ontarians without access to primary care. It is very clear, even if this were a good pharmacare plan, which it clearly is not, that without access to primary care, there is really no way to get medications. I would suggest that there is a bit of a misguided nature here.

    The other difficulty that Canadians are also very aware of is that the newest medications, a class of medications called “biologics”, which account for 2% of claims, are now accounting for 30% of spending. Of course, none of these biologics are included on any of the proposed fantasyland formularies from the NDP-Liberal coalition.

    The other problem we have in our health care system is wait times from application to approval of medications to be on the formulary to the actual acceptance on 50% of public formularies, and we have the longest wait times in the world at 25 months for new life-saving therapies. A government should be seized with policy changes to improve the lack of bureaucratic control and the ability to change things that would be cost effective for Canadians, and indeed changes like this to make a government work more efficiently, which would actually not cost the government anything, it would cost Canadians nothing. However, what is the government doing? As I said previously, it is interfering with clear provincial jurisdiction and adding federated programs that in no way, shape or form could possibly reduce the cost for medications.

    The other reason, of course, is that the cost of these medications are already in a forum which allows all of the public plans to come together under a program called the “pCPA”, which already allows all public plans to negotiate for low prices for those medications. For the federal Minister of Health to suggest that this new plan would suddenly allow prices to drop precipitously is absolutely and categorically untrue.

    The other major issue is related to finances and the cost of living. When Canadians were asked what the major cause of their inability to afford their medications was, and I suspect my colleagues know very well what the answer to that question is, it was inflation. Yes, inflation is cited as the major cause of Canadians' inability to afford their prescription medications.

    Why do we have 40-year high inflation? Well, of course, it is because of the costly coalition of the NDP and Liberals. We know that the chance of a young Canadian now owning their own home is almost zero. It is a dream that is almost dead because of the NDP-Liberal coalition's incompetence. We also know that, more than ever, Canadians are turning to food banks to enable themselves to feed their families. Two million Canadians a month, very sadly, are having to go to food banks, and what do we see?

    We are seeing more large federal government spending in what David Dodge called last evening “likely to be the worst budget” announcement in the history of this country. We are waiting for more of these terrible budget announcements today, in which we will see another estimated $40 billion of deficit spending.

    On top of that, we know that the $1.2-trillion debt that the NDP-Liberal coalition has coffered together, more than all Canadian governments in history combined, is costing more now to service than we are spending on health care. That is an incredibly sad state of affairs. I would suggest that it is one that Canadians are paying very close attention to.

    We also know that simply saving for a down payment for a house is now taking 25 years, when the Canadian dream would be that those 25 years would allow us to pay a mortgage, not simply to save for the down payment.

    Canadians are suffering more and more with their mental health. We also know that the Liberal government had committed $4.5 billion to the Canada mental health transfer, and not one penny of that has been transferred. That is a very sad state of affairs, when one-quarter to one-third of all Canadians are currently suffering with mental health issues, and it is believed that 50% of those are suffering with inadequate treatment. The $4.5 billion could go a long way to help treat the mental health of Canadians.

    This NDP-Liberal coalition has had a multitude of failures, and they are worth pointing out simply because we question why Canadians would believe that another large federal program would ever come to fruition. What we know is that these programs are great announcements. The next prime minister of Canada has spoken about how people cannot eat the papers the announcements are printed on. They are incredible photo ops, when ministers go out to say that they might be capable of doing things, but Canadians know they are absolutely unable to do so.

    I had asked a question of the Minister of Health, which he, sadly, once again, failed to provide an answer to, but now I am quite happy to provide that answer on the Canadian dental care program. Last week I had the opportunity to speak to every dental association in this country, save the Yukon, simply because of time. That being said, I have a sample of the number of dentists who have signed up for this widely touted program.

    In my home province of Nova Scotia, four, not 400 or 14, but four dentists out of 400 have signed up for this program. It is shameful. In Prince Edward Island, it is even easier. The number is zero. There is no debating zero, it is none, zilch, nada. In New Brunswick, once again, to be clear, four out of 370 dentists have signed up. The most we were able to find was in speaking with the British Columbia Dental Association, and it had 400 out of 4,000, which is still a mere 10% of dentists.

    This is a program that has been created without any consultation with respect to dentists. It has been creating an incredible administrative burden on dentists. It has also created a conflict where dentists have to sign a contract with a provider, namely the federal government, as opposed to having a relationship with the patient, which is how health care has historically been delivered in this country.

    Dentists will continue to ask questions about this program. Why would they sign up for a program when they have distrust in this NDP-Liberal coalition?

    Let us talk a bit about affordable housing, which was another failure. It was promised by the government in 2015. It would have to build 9.6 million homes over the next 10 years. We also know they are now building less than this country was building 50, and not 15, but 50 years ago. Fewer houses are being built now because of the terrible policies of the NDP-Liberal coalition.

    We also know that the Prime Minister sat here in the House of Commons and promised 7,500 new doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners, and as I mentioned previously, 6.5 million Canadians now do not have access to primary care. We also know that the government continues to spend money, which could be easily used to generate these spots for Canadians, on its consultants. The government is quite happy to line the pockets of its friends.

    The Liberals also said they would reduce Canada's federal debt-to-GDP ratio every year, which sadly has not happened. We know that they can barely even deliver passports, which is actually one thing that is in the purview of the federal government. It is now announcing things that certainly delve into provincial jurisdiction, yet it cannot do things it should be able to do that are the purview of the federal government. As we begin to look at these things, we know that the NDP-Liberal coalition is an abject failure.

    People will often say that I have a lot of negative things to say. Why do I not give Canadians hope? Let us focus on that for a few minutes.

    The blue seal program we have announced, as Canada's Conservatives, would allow those who have trained internationally to quickly and safely have their credentials recognized here in Canada. That is a program that we would create because, as we go around this country, what we hear from new Canadians who have trained in other countries is that now they are driving taxicabs. I heard a story from one trained physician who is not allowed to work in this country. He was very sad because his young child asked him why, if he was a physician, he went to work dressed as a security guard every day. It does not get any worse for new Canadians than that.

    As we look at that, we know that Canada's Conservatives have been working hard to create policies that, when we form the next government, would easily allow new Canadians to have their credentials recognized here in Canada, so they can support Canada's health care system and work in a manner that is attuned to the training they have undertaken in their home countries.

    We have, again, a photo op. We have papers. We have announcements. We do not have a plan that has been put forward by the NDP-Liberal coalition, in any way, shape or form. We have more announcements. We have no actions, and we have continued interference in provincial jurisdictional matters. As I said, I have gone around the country speaking to provincial ministers of health. The last thing they want is another federal program dropped in the laps of the provinces, which they have to pay for because of the ineptitude of the NDP-Liberal coalition.

    We await the time when the Conservatives will form the next government of this country. We would have a new prime minister and new hope for Canadians, as they would be able to afford their lives, and the inflationary pressures and inflationary spending that continues to be put forth by the NDP-Liberal coalition would end. Canadians could then not be priced out of their lives.

    We would axe the tax, build the houses, fix the budget and stop the crime.

    I would like to put forward an amendment.

    I move:

    Madam Speaker, it is really important to look at the contrast between what the Government of Canada, the Liberal Party, and the Conservative Party are espousing. We are the only party that is espousing the national health care system that Canadians have grown to love for generations now. What we are talking about is expanding it and looking at ways we can complement the national health care system by bringing in a pharmacare program or at least taking a good step forward. That is what we are proposing.

    The Conservatives, on the other hand, are proposing to kill it. They are proposing that the federal government should not play a role in many aspects of health care. I believe that the Conservative Party is doing a great disservice to Canadians. Can the member give a clear indication as to why the Conservative Party does not believe pharmaceutical care has the role to play in Canadian health care that Canadians want it to play?

    Madam Speaker, what this member says is categorically untrue. What we have pointed out with the eloquent speech that I just gave is that 6.5 million Canadians do not have access to health care. We know that the wait times are the longest that they have ever been in the history of this country. With the booing and guffawing behind me, they know it is all true that the difficulty that exists inside the current health care program is the inability of Canadians to access the program.

     Why would we continue to put lipstick on a pig when the Liberals' inaction has allowed the system to deteriorate to the point where many Canadians say that the system is failing them, as indeed it is? When 17,000 to 30,000 men and women a year in this country are dying on a waiting list, that is a failing system.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Conservative Party health critic, touched on an important point: access to care and wait times.

    Would he tell us about the Conservative Party's plan to reduce wait times? After all, when we were talking about health transfer agreements, I did not hear his leader lobby very hard in favour of doing more than what was on the table, which the provinces know will not be enough to resolve the problem he raised earlier.

    How does his party plan to really strengthen health care systems in the provinces and Quebec?

    Madam Speaker, I believe it is always important to work with all the provinces and encourage necessary changes within the system, but also to respect provincial jurisdiction, which is a fundamental issue. I am sure provincial jurisdiction is important to my colleague as well.

    That will be the Conservatives' goal when we form government.

    Madam Speaker, I had flashbacks when the member was speaking because, of course, we lived through the terrible years of the Harper regime. When the member said the Conservatives would take care of health care, we saw what the Harper regime did, which was to gut health care across the country, leading to the crisis we see today.

     The member talked about credential recognition. I heard the same speech from Harper and his minions just before the Conservatives formed government, and the reality was that they did nothing on credential recognition. They doubled the cost of housing. They increased and doubled the lineups at food banks. The Harper regime was absolutely dismal. We lived through it and that is why the Conservatives were thrown out of power. Now, the Conservatives are saying that this time they would be better, but it kind of strikes at credibility.

    The member did say very clearly that the Conservatives would destroy pharmacare. This is in Cumberland—Colchester, where 17,000 of his constituents actually need the kinds of supports that come from providing support for diabetes medications, which can run up to $900 a month. I would like the member to say clearly to his constituents in Cumberland—Colchester whether Conservatives would gut pharmacare. Do they refuse the kinds of supports that 17,000 people in Cumberland—Colchester need?

    Madam Speaker, I am not sure in what fantasyland the member was listening to the fantastic speech I gave. There was no mention of anything that he said in his question, so I am not sure where that came from.

    That being said, what we do know is that a new day, a new dawn and a new sense of hope is out there with Canadians because of the hope that we, as the next Conservative government, are able to give Canadians. We know of the damage the policies of the NDP-Liberal coalition have caused for Canadians. As I said, the numbers speak for themselves. There are 6.5 million Canadians who do not have access to primary care.

    As far as the great people of Cumberland—Colchester go, Nova Scotia, much like my colleague's riding in the great province of Quebec, has a program for pharmacare that already enables all Nova Scotians to access a pharmacare program, which, indeed, covers even more medications than the one put forward by the inept NDP-Liberal coalition government with the anemic formularies that it has so far put forward.

    The great people of Cumberland—Colchester have access to wonderful programs and those are the things that a Conservative government should be supporting in the future.

    Madam Speaker, in relation to the question my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester asked the Minister of Health, I have a letter from a local dentist in my area and I am wondering if the member could refer to any similarities between the Canadian dental care plan and what is being rolled out in the pharmacare plan.

    This dentist says that it may place our oral dental care system in serious jeopardy. He goes on to say that it is deeply flawed and stands to jeopardize our entire established system and how they deliver care to their patients. He said that only 70% of dentists have said they are likely to participate as a provider in the CDCP program. He went on to say that patients are going to be surprised to learn that dental care will not be free, they may not be able to choose their preferred dentists and nothing has been done to protect access to third party insurance.

    I would ask my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester if he can outline more than he did in his speech, which was a great speech, by the way, any similarities he can see between this plan and the pharmacare plan.

    Madam Speaker, we know that the NDP-Liberal coalition wants to create federated programs that are going to reduce choices for Canadians and push those who do have access to the beloved care they now have into programs that will cover much fewer medications. For instance, we know at the current time that public programs cover about half of the medications that privately funded plans do. That will reduce choice for Canadians.

    What incentive will there be for employers to continue to provide plans for their hard-working employees in the future if a federated plan with a few old medications on it is what is being offered “for free” on the backs of all Canadians? Of course, we know that does not account for the bloated bureaucracy that it will take.

    As I mentioned, just to create a new Canada drug agency, in and of itself, will cost at least $90 million. Even though my great colleague suggested that perhaps 70% of dentists may support it, we know from the figures now that only less than 10% of the 26,500 dentists in Canada have signed up for this program, which is severely limiting access for Canadians. Indeed, last week, in one day, four great supporters in Cumberland—Colchester showed up at my office and said they have a shiny card for the dental care program, but they cannot find a dentist to provide the care because of the terrible nature of this program, which was created without consultation with the great dentists who provide care to millions of Canadians across this country.

    It is a shame. Liberals should be ashamed of their program and should be ashamed of the fact that they want to introduce another bloated federated program on the backs of hard-working Canadians.

    I would remind hon. members that we are debating the amendment.

    The hon. member for Montcalm.

    Madam Speaker, after what I have heard, I would like to begin my speech by commenting briefly on the answer given by the Conservative health critic, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Health. In his answer, he spoke strictly about the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces and made no mention of what kind of additional funding the Conservatives would provide for health transfers. If I understood him correctly, basically, the only real option Quebeckers have is the Bloc Québécois.

    On one hand, we have the Liberal Party, which says that it will give the provinces money but only on its own terms and while infringing on their jurisdictions. The Liberals are duplicating programs and efforts. On the other hand, we have the Conservative Party, which says that it will not bother the provinces and will respect their jurisdictions but it will not give them a single cent more. That is the choice facing Canadian voters, except in Quebec, where they can vote for the Bloc Québécois.

    I will begin my speech with a brief comment, and I hope that the Minister of Health will listen carefully to what I am saying. He always talks about the great discussions that he has with the Quebec health minister. I will come back to that a little later.

    I want to begin by saying that in June 2019, the Quebec national state, through its National Assembly, with a single voice and across party lines, responded to this desire to implement coast-to-coast pharmacare. The National Assembly and the national state of the people of Quebec have not changed their position on this issue. The motion that was adopted the day after the Hoskins report reads as follows:

    I should point out that it has now been nearly 28 years.

    That is what is going on right now. This motion was moved in June 2019. The House passed a motion twice on recognizing Quebec as a nation. When we respect a nation as a national state, by allegedly giving it more than mere token recognition, then the least we can do is avoid the kind of heavy-handed approach taken by the current federal Liberal minister of health. We have to sit down respectfully with the people who administer a plan, which is not perfect.

    In fact, I imagine that if the federal government was being stingy with the health transfers, it was because it wanted to funnel some of the money into pharmacare and dental insurance. We will talk about that later. In this case, the government should have come and sat down to see who has the expertise, learn how the Quebec system operates and arrange to provide the full compensation that Quebec is calling for, with no strings attached. In that regard, we need to stop all the speculation around what Quebec wants to do with the money.

     Quebec’s health minister was very clear when he said, “we have no problem adding this money to the drug insurance program. But it has to be without conditions. It is not up to them to decide what the best drug coverage is for Quebeckers”.

     His intention seems pretty clear. There is respect for Quebec symbolically. They call Quebec a nation to avoid looking foolish. When it comes down to it, though, this must not have any legislative consequences, period. The debate could end here if full compensation were offered. The bill provides for a list to be prepared. Earlier I asked the minister if he knew the list of drugs covered in Quebec, but he did not wish to answer my question. Do members know how many drugs are covered by Quebec’s drug insurance plan? The answer is 8,000. I wanted to bring this 792-page list, but I found it a bit heavy.

     These sorcerers' apprentices would have us believe they will arrange all this in no time at all. They will create the Canadian drug agency while in Quebec, there is already infrastructure. Ottawa has so much money that they are going to create another structure. There will be a duplication of structures. Is the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux, or INESSS, not doing its job properly? It has been 28 years since Quebec has been making decisions, analyzing all the elements at a molecular level and determining whether these elements, many of which are innovative, are to be reimbursed. They are included in the list. Whether we are talking about the public part or the private part of this mixed plan, everyone has access to the same drugs.

     This would have been a great opportunity to respect the Quebec nation. The Quebec national state and all its parties are asking for the same thing. The leader of the NDP, that progressive party, is lecturing us. He is completely out to lunch, though, when he says that the health problem in Quebec has to do with the fact that the government has not invested enough in health care. The Government of Quebec increased its budget by 50%. It has enacted reforms to try to do more with less. It implemented a number of reforms and a lot of structural modifications in an effort to achieve greater health efficiencies.

    We have a partner that has not been putting enough money on the table. Then, a few years later, this same partner has the nerve to say that Quebec does not know how to manage its own health care system and tries to explain how it should be done. The first thing that partner should do is hand over the money. That would be a good starting point. Quebec's current resistance to all this federal interference should not be that hard to grasp. It is easy for the Prime Minister to say that he does not care about jurisdictions. The Prime Minister does not care about the Constitution. Well, let him reopen the Constitution, then. We will see if he really does not care. The government likes to lecture everyone else, but cannot even take care of its own people. That is the federal government. I will come back to that.

    One might think this bill was well-intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the devil is in the details. I asked only one question: How many prescription drugs will be covered by the national public pharmacare program with a single universal payer? Will Quebec's list be used? Will Quebec have to take any prescription drugs off its list? Will INESSS be made redundant, or will it be able to continue doing its good work? Why is a Canadian agency being created to supersede the process we have in Quebec? We are not getting any answers to these questions. However, the minister claims he has maintained a very good dialogue with Quebec. I gave an example. I think the minister is having a dialogue of the deaf, where he listens only to himself and not the other party.

    It seems to me that it was quite clear when Quebec's health minister, Christian Dubé, said, “we have no problem adding this money to the drug insurance program. But it has to be without conditions”. He then added the following:

    The federal health minister just told us that he has very good conversations with him, even though the Premier of Quebec felt it necessary to hold a press conference to tell the federal Liberal government—which is in a coalition with the NDP and was not so centralist before the NDP got involved—to mind its own business. The minister just told us this morning that they have very good conversations, but when we stand up in question period, we are told that we are trying to pick a fight. All we are saying is that the federal government should mind its own business. We are only relaying the message from the National Assembly of Quebec, not from a single party but from all parties, on pharmacare.

    The reason Ottawa has money in the first place is because of the fiscal imbalance. Well, we are going to enhance our own program. I challenge anyone here this morning to prove they could do a more competent job managing our program than those who are doing it right now in Quebec City. I challenge anyone willing to make that claim to go make their case to those managing the program and prove that they have the competence. I am talking not only about provincial competence in the jurisdictional sense, but also about incompetence. In that respect, I have a short list I will return to later.

     Bill C-64 has put the cart before the horse, as the saying goes. Today, rather than sitting down, holding a summit, talking to people, looking at what was being done and coming up with something of substance, the government announced an intention of putting something in place. However, it did not talk to anyone, it is not open to anything without conditions, and it is saying that Quebec must march to the beat of Ottawa's drum.

     This is not well intentioned; this is a political deal to stay in power until October 2025. That is what this bill is really about. That is what is behind it, because no one could be this keen to jump into as sensitive and critical a field as pharmacare.

     Drugs in 2024 are not like they used to be in 1996 or 1997. We are not talking about codeine or Tylenol. We are talking about innovative molecules that often give rise to treatments that could potentially allow patients to avoid surgeries and transplants. A case in point is Trikafta for cystic fibrosis. Patients can take two pills and a glass of water a day, instead of being hospitalized for 280 or 320 days a year, instead of having to get a lung transplant. This drug needs to be covered. How will the list be compiled, and how can we trust the federal government, which starts things but then walks away?

    After all, this is the government that pilfered from the EI fund and from workers and that never did the right thing by returning the money. This is the government that dumped the federal deficit on the provinces and cut health transfers in the mid-1990s. Jean Chrétien travelled the world, boasting to the G7 countries that all he had to do to balance his budget was cut health transfers and that the best part was that people were protesting in front of the Quebec National Assembly, not in front of the Parliament of Canada. That is what the federal government is like.

     It is creating a program now, but how many years will it be before the government disengages because it got the math wrong, it is unable to manage the program properly, and the infrastructure is cumbersome and redundant, when the money should be on the ground, going directly to patients as quickly as possible?

     The minister delivered a very nice speech, saying the governments get along really well, the principles are sound, the Quebec government wants to co-operate. In reality, the Quebec government's response was to ask Ottawa to mind its own business.

     The federal government is not even capable of handling its own affairs properly. Think about the whole F-35 saga or the lack of investment in defence. Think about Phoenix, the borders, passports, asylum seekers. The national emergency stockpile was empty when the pandemic hit. The Global Public Health Intelligence Network had been dismantled and was ineffective at the start of the pandemic. The federal government should mind its own business and clean up its own house before lecturing us.

     It lectures the provinces about health care management, but it is the worst employer for federal health employees. Communities under the federal government's jurisdiction are neglected. The funding Ottawa provides for public health care is insufficient, to be sure, but the federal government treats its employees worse than the provinces do. How it can then lecture anyone, I just do not know.

     The bill seeks to put in place principles, and then, based on these principles, a list will be compiled. After this list is compiled, an agency and then a committee will be established. The government is so clueless about where it wants to go with this that it is tabling a bill to create a committee that will make recommendations for rolling out pharmacare. Bravo.

    The Bloc Québécois is not opposed to state pharmacare. It already exists in Quebec. It is far from perfect, there are positives and negatives, but it does guarantee minimum coverage. What we are calling for is what the National Assembly has always demanded: the right to opt out with full compensation. Given how long Quebec has been administering pharmacare, if there was a real need elsewhere, I imagine others would have followed suit. However, that was not the case. We are going to ensure that no one is ever allowed to dismantle our system or reduce our coverage.

    Medication is currently free for people aged 18 and under. The system is not perfect, of course, and there are certain fees involved. However, if we had the money, we could increase free coverage without compromising on the list of drugs we cover.

    Does the federal government really know how much it is going to cost to make everything free from the first dollar invested? I am not sure these sorcerers' apprentices really know what they are doing. Based on the reaction of the National Assembly and the Quebec government, I am certain the federal government has never sat down with them to have a serious conversation about it. Quebec's example and expertise are not going to be on the agenda as the government implements its system.

    Madam Speaker, many years ago, the Province of Saskatchewan implemented a policy and a program that ultimately led, in good part, to the national government recognizing how important it was to develop a national health care system.

    As a direct result, over generations now, we have benefited from Canada's system. However, many people advocated, over the years, for a pharmacare component. What we are seeing today is historic legislation that would lead us to achieving that particular goal.

    This is something that is universally shared across the country. People residing in every province understand and have faith in the Canada health system, whether they are in Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax or any municipality in between. There is a great deal of support for the federal government to be involved in health care. That is why we have the Canada Health Act.

    Does the member not believe that Canada has more of a role to play than just being an ATM?

    Madam Speaker, this is our money. What I just heard is very insulting. My colleague talks about an ATM when it is the government that manages our taxes.

     All that we are asking for, and what everyone is asking for, is that the Government of Canada make a substantial and recurring investment in health transfers instead of the insignificant amount that has been put on the table.

     During the third wave of COVID-19, experts told us that the side effects of the pandemic on non-COVID-19 patients could take from five to eight years before subsiding. Right in the middle of the third wave, what did the government do? It supposedly waited until after the pandemic to give the provinces peanuts to care for their people. That is not only insulting, it is absolutely criminal.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his passionate and factual remarks opposing the costly Liberal-NDP coalition and all its ridiculous programs.

     My question is this: When the Bloc Québécois has the opportunity, will it vote against the budget, the government and the costly coalition?

    Madam Speaker, we will look at the budget. Just yesterday, given Ottawa’s encroachments into areas of Quebec jurisdiction, the Bloc Québécois House leader said that we could not vote for this budget. We will indeed vote against the budget.

     However, I will let our critics take a position on this. That is not my job, as I am the health critic. I will not presume to take anyone else's job. In principle, the Bloc Québécois should vote against this budget because it does not respect the Quebec national state or the Quebec nation.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the points he raised in his speech.

     As a progressive jurisdiction, Quebec is recognized as having a stronger social safety net than what exists in most of Canada, including its drug insurance plan, child care program, housing and so forth. This is not by chance; it is clearly the result of the battles waged by Quebeckers over decades.

     That being said, there are many Canadians who have fought to expand and strengthen the health system in the rest of Canada. I am proud of the work done by the NDP on pharmacare. We have major concerns when it comes to the promises made by the Liberals. We feel we have to make sure to expand the pharmaceutical services that Canadians are entitled to.

     Does my colleague agree that Canadians should have these services? As the NDP said, should there be negotiations with the Government of Quebec?

    Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that the NDP member appears to know more about Quebec society than her leader, who said that, if things are not going well with health care in Quebec, it is because we are not investing enough. Since 2018, Quebec's health care budget has actually increased from $40 billion to $59 billion. We are investing in health care. The problem is that the federal government is not doing enough.

     If other provinces want to adopt a pharmacare plan, they are free to do so, but I would like to hear the NDP and the member explicitly say that Quebec should have the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague from Montcalm's speech was extremely interesting.

     I have been listening to all this and observing the federal government's spending spree in provincial areas of jurisdiction over the past few weeks, which is obviously terrible. I wonder if the real problem we are having with this bill and with the way the NDP-Liberal government is behaving by investing in provincial areas of jurisdiction is not a tax collection problem. Quebec collects taxes from us taxpayers so it can provide services within its jurisdiction; the federal government also collects taxes for services within its jurisdiction, and it always says it has too much and will give some back, but with conditions.

     Is the problem we have with the bill not the same problem we have with every bill that encroaches on the provinces' jurisdictions? In the end, is the solution not simply for the federal government to stop taking more money out of Quebeckers' pockets than necessary?

     Perhaps Quebeckers should finally make the decision to leave Confederation.

    Madam Speaker, no one will be surprised to hear me say that, by continually oppressing us, by not recognizing that we are a national government, by making sure that any recognition is merely symbolic and has no legislative impact at all, the federal government is making sure that, one day, Quebeckers will decide to take control of their own affairs and make Quebec its own country.

    Madam Speaker, with respect to our monetary policy and how it relates to health care policy, I did some quick math: $1.2 trillion of national debt at a 4% interest rate would be $48 billion for annual servicing costs.

    What does the member for Montcalm think the likelihood is that the Liberal promises about health care, dental care and now pharmacare would actually be successful in this environment of high debt servicing costs?

    Madam Speaker, there is not much time left until the election. The Liberals are incapable of hearing Quebec's demands, among other things. Quebec will not prevent the federal government from doing what it wants everywhere else, but it is warning the federal government to be careful, because Quebec requires the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation. I think that, if the federal government denies this, it will not have time to do anything.

     If the next government is Conservative, as today's polls suggest, I think that there will not be much for health care. If I understood the Conservative Party's health critic correctly earlier, the Conservatives will not interfere or tell us what to do, but we will not get a penny.

    Madam Speaker, to begin, I will respond to my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, because they do not seem to have read or listened to the Quebeckers who support this bill.

    I will start by reading the statements issued by the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, or CSD, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, or CSQ, and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or FTQ. These labour federations represent one million Quebeckers. When we factor in the families of these workers, these federations represent more than one-third of Quebec's population.

    The labour federations said that they:

    I also want to quote the leaders of the labour federations. First, Luc Beauregard, secretary-treasurer of the CSQ, had this to say:

    Next, Magali Picard, president of the FTQ, said this:

    I would like to mention that “[t]he labour federations believe that Quebec is misguided in calling for an unconditional right to opt out.”

    Caroline Senneville, president of the CSN, had this to say:

    Finally, Luc Vachon, president of the CSD, had this to say:

    Again, the leaders of Quebec's largest labour federations have been clear. They represent more than one-third of Quebec's population.

    We just heard the Bloc Québécois's arguments against this bill. I am asking them very nicely to listen to Quebeckers rather than assuming that they know what Quebeckers think. The Bloc Québécois does not like to hear that this bill represents what Quebeckers really want. The reality is that these are the voices in Quebec that the Bloc Québécois should be listening to.

    It is no secret that Quebec's current system is not working. People are falling through the cracks. This bill, which the NDP pushed for and which is before the House because of the NDP, will make a difference in the lives of Quebeckers and Canadians across the country.

     That is my message to my Bloc Québécois colleagues. It is difficult to be against Bill C-64 after hearing all those people who have looked at it and want us to move forward with it. They want us to help those who have trouble paying for their diabetes medication, as well as the low-income people who are falling through the cracks. It is something worth thinking about. I hope that my Bloc Québécois colleagues will hear these voices and act accordingly by voting in favour of the bill. They cannot just be reactionary like the Conservatives.

    First, I want to about the impact of pharmacare. A little over three years ago, I brought forward, on behalf of the NDP caucus, the Canada pharmacare act. This would have made a difference in the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. There were 120,000 Canadians who wrote to their members of Parliament, hundreds of them wrote to each Conservative MP and systematically the Conservatives and Liberals voted against that bill, which would have established, on the basis of the Canada Health Act and its five principles of universal health care, pharmacare in Canada.

    For me, this is poetic justice. Three years later now, because of the NPD's pressure, the work of the leader of the NDP, my colleague from Burnaby South, our health critic at the time, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, and the entire NDP caucus, using our weight and our pressure in a minority Parliament, we have actually achieved something that will make a significant difference in the lives of people.

    The Conservatives have said that diabetes and contraception is only a start, which is very true, but the reality is that when we talk about diabetes medication, the cost of having diabetes, which is a profound health challenge, can be up to $900 a month. I cited a little earlier that a resident of Burnaby, B.C., Amber Malott, pays $900 a month.

    Each and every Conservative MP has in their riding 17,000 people to 18,000 people who would be impacted by this significant move forward in Canadian health care. They would benefit from that. The ones who are paying anywhere from $100 a month to even $900 a month finally have that burden taken off them.

    The Conservatives have signalled they want to gut it. They blocked the bill last week and refused to even have it brought to the floor of the House of Commons. They have indicated that they will try to block and destroy this legislation at every step. We have to ask the question, why? Is it just weird ideology, is it just their extremist leader or is it the fact that they have not even read the legislation and have not consulted their constituents? If they talked to 17,000 people or 18,000 people in each of their ridings, they would find those constituents saying that we need to adopt legislation, that they cannot continue to pay $200 a month, or $500 a month or $900 a month for medication, that they simply cannot afford to put food on the table or keep a roof over their heads and pay for this medication at the same time.

    If the Conservatives consulted their constituents, they would hear overwhelmingly from those 17,000 people or 18,000 people that this would make a difference in their lives. I certainly will be going out to Conservative ridings and consulting their constituents, because they seem unwilling to do so. For them to block the bill and to say that they do not even want it discussed on the floor of the House of Commons indicates their extremism within—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    I want to remind members there will be an opportunity for 10 minutes of questions and comments. If hon. members have questions and comments, they know they should wait until the appropriate time to ask them.

    The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

    Madam Speaker, from the reaction of the Conservatives, it is obvious they are a little worried about this. They know that they have not consulted their constituents. They have not talked to them.

     The Conservatives love to say that they are concerned about affordability. We recall that under the dismal, terrible Harper regime, food line-ups and the price of housing doubled. They say that Liberals did the same thing, but the reality is that the Conservatives, at no point, have ever taken responsibility for what they imposed on Canadians. At least the Liberals are willing to accept NDP leadership to bring forward things that will benefit people, such as dental care, affordable housing and, now, pharmacare.

    If the Conservatives are sensitive about this, if they are saying that do not want people talking to their constituents, the 17,000 to 18,000 people who would benefit from having their diabetes medication and devices taken care of, we have to wonder about their motivation. They do not want to consult their constituents themselves and they do not want anybody else to consult their constituents. They just want to, in a disconnected way, make their speeches in the House of Commons, without actually talking to the people who would benefit from the bill.

    We have to wonder about the kind of responsibility the Conservatives take as elected representatives, particularly given how deplorable their record was when in government. Under the Harper regime, it was the worst government in Canadian history. I could easily spend hours speaking to that, and in fact I did.

     As members will recall, I spoke for 14 hours about the 2012 budget and the appalling impacts of that budget on Canadians, on Canadian seniors and on environmental policy. I could literally speak for hours about the scandals, the dishonesty, the lack of transparency and the brutality of the Harper regime; about what it did to seniors, forcing them to work longer; what it did to veterans by shutting off all their services. However, I am going to leave that for today. Hopefully, at some future time, we can really remind Canadians how dismal and terrible the Harper regime was. The Conservatives who were there should be ready to apologize, but they have never apologized for everything they did.

    Here is an opportunity for the Conservatives to address the wrongs when they were in government, when housing prices doubled, when they slashed affordable housing and when they ensured that services were gutted. They have an opportunity to address some of those things, and they are saying no. They are refusing to provide pharmacare or have any kinds of supports for the people in their ridings, the 17,000 or 18,000 people in each of their ridings who would benefit from having their diabetes medication covered. They are saying that they do not want to help their constituents at all. That is a sad thing.

    The reality is that this bill on pharmacare would make a big difference, on average, for every member of Parliament, not just the Conservatives. Every member of Parliament in the House of Commons would see 17,000 to 18,000 of their constituents benefit. The people who are struggling to pay for their diabetes medication, to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head would benefit. Imagine the cost of up to $900 a month, and we are talking about a $10,000 benefit, yet the Conservatives say that they are not interested.

    There is more. This is where we get back to three years ago when this was brought forward in the House of Commons. The Conservatives and Liberals, with alacrity, voted down the Canada pharmacare bill. Thankfully, the Liberals are now apologizing for that by bringing forward and supporting the pharmacare bill.

    As we know, with pharmacare writ large, and the Parliament Budgetary Office has indicated this so many times, the overall savings to Canadians would be about $4 billion. The savings to our health care system are enormous. Many of the people who end up in our emergency wards across the country are there because they cannot afford to pay for their medication that keeps them in good health.

     Canada is the only country that has universal health care, thanks to Tommy Douglas and the NDP fighting hard for it in the 1960s, but does not have universal pharmacare.

    Why is it that every other country has coupled universal health care with universal pharmacare? It is that having access to medication beyond the hospital makes good sense for the health care system as a whole. If someone can take the medication their doctor prescribes for them to keep them in good health, they are not going to spend their time in the acute care ward or the emergency ward at the hospital. We know what those costs are. An acute care bed over the course of a week is $30,000.

    Why would we not put pharmacare in place in a way that allows someone to stay in good health and to stay out of the hospital? That is why the Parliamentary Budget Officer stressed not only the savings to the health care system, but also the savings that come from bulk purchasing negotiations that have led other countries like New Zealand to reduce the cost of some of its medications by up to 90%.

    It is no longer a multitude of hundreds of different negotiations taking place where the pharmaceutical companies can play one against the other. With a universal pharmacare system, we can tell the pharmaceutical companies what prices we are going to pay. When New Zealand reduced the cost of some of its medications by 90%, that was due to bulk purchasing being the best practice.

    Conservatives will not talk about this at all because, quite frankly, I find most Conservatives are mathematically challenged. When it comes to budgets, they simply do not do it well. We saw it under the Harper regime and its record deficits. They are terrible when it comes to managing money and to paying down debt.

    According to a stellar source, the Ministry of Finance, in its fiscal period returns, actually compared NDP governments with Conservative and Liberal governments at the provincial and the federal levels. NDP governments, over the last 40 years, have been the best at managing money and at ensuring money goes into the health care system for things like that.

    Rather than paying money to the pharmaceutical companies, we need to be negotiating cheaper prices and making sure it is accessible to everybody, which then saves money in the health care system. It means fewer stays in acute care beds and fewer visits to emergency wards. It makes sense, which is why other countries have universal health care and universal pharmacare.

    This is the first important step to universal pharmacare. It is to ensure that people who are forced to take diabetes medication and who need access to diabetes devices actually have them paid for and no longer have to question whether they can pay for them. If they cannot pay for them, they end up in the hospital and it costs our health care system far more than having pharmacare in place. It just makes good sense.

    It is not just that people who cannot afford to pay for their medication end up in acute care beds and in emergency wards, but Canadian nurses have been telling us for years that, tragically, hundreds of Canadians die every year because they cannot afford to pay for the medication that would keep them alive. That is hundreds of Canadians.

    This has been a crisis in our health care system. People cannot afford to pay for their medication, so they go to the hospital and cost the health care system more with an acute care bed, but worse, they also pass away. That creates even more mourning in the health care system. We simply should not be willing to tolerate that.

    Conservatives and Liberals, for decades, have said that it is not their problem. They were not going to take charge of it. Thankfully, the Liberals, and I do compliment the Minister of Health for stepping up on this, are finally moving forward with the first step of pharmacare in Canada. This is vitally important.

    Professionals in the health care system say that this is the smart thing to do. Financially, we know it costs $4 billion less to have a pharmacare program in place than it would to continue with the patchwork we have now. If we could save hundreds of lives, then all these things make sense. It should not even be a matter of controversy. This should be adopted at all stages and adopted by all members of Parliament.

    As I mentioned, 17,000 to 18,000 Canadians, in every riding in the country, would benefit from just having access to the diabetes medication that is prescribed in the bill. The NDP is happy to see this first step taken. We are not going to give up. We are going to keep pushing. I have constituents who are paying $1,000 a month for heart medication, and that is going to be the next push for us. However, we believe strongly that the House should be adopting the bill. We should move it to committee, and we should get going with putting in place the first steps of pharmacare in Canada.

    Madam Speaker, I have often witnessed a sad thing in Manitoba, where individuals who go into hospital situations require medications after they leave the hospital. While they are in the hospital, the medication is free, but when they leave, they have to cover their own costs for medications. That puts many people, especially those on fixed incomes, in positions where they have to decide on food versus medicine. Ultimately, they end up going back to the hospital because they are not taking the medications that they should be taking.

     When I think of the long term and how we evolve and develop a pharmacare program, we should be reflecting on what it initially meant when we brought in a national health care system, and there was always the thought of having a pharmacare component to it. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on how important it is that we recognize this as is a stepping stone moving forward into a stronger and healthier health care system.

    Madam Speaker, I often disagree with the member for Winnipeg North, as he disagrees with me, but on this issue, we are in solidarity because he is absolutely right. We are wasting tax dollars on a health care system that has been dysfunctional. When a person goes to a hospital due to a medical emergency, medication is paid for. Then, the moment they leave, it is up to them, and they are on their own. If they have to scrimp on food or have to move out of their apartment to pay for that medication, it is up to them. The reality for so many Canadians, for hundreds who die every year, is that they simply cannot afford to do all those things. It is time that we put in place pharmacare, and it is time that we start extending it to other types of medications.

    Madam Speaker, this is not a pharmacare plan; this is a PR exercise by an NDP-Liberal coalition that is floundering in the polls. There is a reason that almost a quarter of the NDP MPs are not seeking re-election.

    The member is from British Columbia, as am I also. As he was speaking, I was looking up what the plan is for pharmacare in B.C. It says, specifically, that pharmacare covers approved diabetes management supplies and most insulin. It is already covered. The plan being proposed does not even compare.

    I wonder if the member will also mention that, due to inflationary spending, we have to pay $50 billion in interest and that it is actually undermining health care across Canada.

    Madam Speaker, I think the member has just made my point.

    Yes, B.C. is already moving. It is the leader in the country in terms of affordable housing, with more housing built in British Columbia than in the rest of the country combined. It is a leader in the country in environmental legislation, in health care investments and in post-secondary education. Therefore, the member is absolutely right to point out that the B.C. NDP government is doing the best job in the country of any government, and we appreciate that he is acknowledging that. The point is that we want to bring these best practices from B.C. and put them in place right across the country.

    The member also mentioned deficits. I find it rich that any Conservative would talk about deficits after their deplorable record of $30 billion a year given to overseas tax havens. Under the Harper tax haven treaties, it was $30 billion. Over their watch, it was $300 billion. They have been absolutely deplorable in financial management, and we are still paying the cost today.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out what the NDP member did, that is, highlight the exemplary work of Quebec's labour federations, which fought for years for Quebec to implement universal pharmacare. We succeeded. For 20 years, I took part in the fight that led to the implementation of the pharmacare plan Quebec has today. The plan is not perfect, but it is false to claim that Canada is going to create a pharmacare plan without taking the reality of Quebec and the provinces into account.

     If my colleague were honest, he could also have said that the labour federations called for the right to opt out with full compensation. It says so in their statements. However, the NDP does not care about that because it wants social programs that extend from coast to coast to coast. We know that New Zealand has a population of five million. Canada has a population of 34 million, and this number will continue to grow.

     If the federal government does not respect the provinces' jurisdictions, in particular when it comes to administering social programs and programs like health care, that goes totally against what Canada stands for.

    Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois should apologize for trying to distort what I just said. Caroline Senneville, president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, said the following: “The labour federations believe that Quebec is misguided in calling for an unconditional right to opt out.”

     Luc Vachon, president of the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, said that “the time has come to move beyond constitutional squabbling”.

     The reality is that all of these labour federations, which represent one million workers in Quebec, which amounts to almost one-third of Quebec's population, said that they welcomed the introduction of a pharmacare bill. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois should take responsibility by supporting the bill and sending it to committee so that we can move forward with the bill, which the labour federations welcome.

    Madam Speaker, it was fascinating to watch the Conservatives put up their doctor who just trashed the notion of medical treatment, not with any facts, but with those kinds of bumper-sticker slogans: four legs good, two legs bad. I was trying to understand how a doctor could be so dismissive of basic health care. Then, of course, it dawned on me that the Conservatives' deputy leader was a lobbyist for AbbVie. That was a company that jacked up its medical prices for seniors by over 470%, so we know what the Conservatives would do with seniors and medical treatment. They do not want seniors to get pharmacare. Then, we also find out that the Conservative Party's governing body is full of lobbyists for big pharma.

    I'd like to ask my hon. colleague why the Conservative MPs and their one doctor are so concerned about protecting the interests of companies that they worked for that have jacked up medical costs on basic pharmacare for seniors.

    Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. The corporate Conservatives are all over; there are lobbyists in their ranks and lobbyists influencing the Conservative Party. They see Canadians as plunder, and they can just jack up oil and gas prices. It was jacked up 30¢ in British Columbia as gas price gouging, and not a single Conservative MP from British Columbia said one word. With grocery price gouging and food price gouging, we find out that the director of the next Conservative campaign is a Loblaws lobbyist. There is not a word about food price gouging. The Conservatives simply allow the corporate sector to plunder Canadians. We saw this under the Harper regime. As my colleague from Timmins—James Bay points out, it was the worst government in Canadian history.

     We saw big corporations basically ravaging this country. The Conservatives' massive giveaway of $30 billion each and every year did not go to seniors, to students or to health care. It does not go to support any building at all in the country. It went to the Harper tax haven treaties. Basically, they signed a whole bunch of tax haven treaties so that the wealthy and the big corporations could take their money overseas and not pay a dime of tax. Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves.

    Madam Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

    Bill C-64, the pharmacare act, is a transformative shift in our national approach to health care. We are taking a decisive step towards not just improving health care but also fundamentally redefining what it means to be a part of this great nation.

     Health care is a cornerstone of Canadian identity, rooted in the belief that access to medical care should be based on need, not ability to pay. However, until now, this promise has been incomplete, because it has not fully covered medications.

    Bill C-64 would establish a framework towards national universal pharmacare in Canada for certain prescription drugs and related products, including free coverage for contraception and diabetes medication. This is more than policy; it is a new chapter in our social contract.

    This comes after our Canadian dental care program. That program reduced the financial barrier to accessing oral health care services for up to nine million uninsured Canadian residents.

    Let us consider the significance of this moment. Many of our citizens, particularly the chronically ill and the economically vulnerable, have had to choose between medication and other essentials of life. This choice, which no one should ever have to make, has led to deteriorating health conditions, increased hospitalizations and, tragically, premature deaths.

    Bill C-64 would also mandate that the Canadian Drug Agency works towards the development of a national formulary, develop a national bulk purchasing strategy and support the publication of a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription medications.

    Several G7 countries have implemented national pharmacare programs that vary in structure but share the common goal of improving access to medications. In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service covers most prescription medications, with patients paying a fixed prescription charge or obtaining an exemption. It has made medications free for children, the elderly and low-income individuals.

    France operates a co-payment system in which patients are reimbursed for a significant portion of their medication costs based on the medication's necessity and effectiveness. Some essential medications are covered at 100%.

    Germany features a statutory health insurance system that covers the vast majority of the population. Prescriptions require a nominal co-pay that is capped annually.

    Similarly, Italy's national health system provides medications at low or no cost, depending on the medication's classification and the patient's income level.

    Japan has a system where patients pay a percentage of the costs for their prescriptions. This is adjusted based on income, age and chronic health status, ensuring that no one is denied access because of financial constraints.

    These G7 countries demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that essential medications are affordable. This reduces the financial burden on individuals and promotes better health outcomes across the population.

     The United States and Canada have distinct health care systems that reflect differing approaches to health care management and funding. The U.S. health care system is predominantly privatized; health insurance is primarily provided through private entities. It is supplemented by government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, for specific groups such as the elderly and low-income individuals. This system often results in higher out-of-pocket costs for individuals, depending on their insurance plans.

    In contrast, Canada's health care system is publicly funded. Funded through taxation, it provides universal coverage for all Canadian citizens and permanent residents. Health care services in Canada are delivered through a single-payer system, meaning that the government pays for care that is delivered by private entities. This model aims to ensure that access to health care does not depend on one's ability to pay.

    While both systems aim to deliver high-quality medical care, the Canadian system is generally more focused on equitable access, whereas the U.S. system offers a wider range of provider choices and faster access to elective procedures, often at a higher cost to the consumer. The U.S. system also features higher health care spending per capita compared with Canada, which has managed to control costs more effectively through its single-payer system.

     As a diabetic, I would like to touch on the transformative change that promises to reshape the lives of the more than 3.7 million Canadians living with diabetes.

    Diabetes, a chronic and complex disease, poses one of the greatest health challenges in our nation, impacting an enormous swath of our population across every age, socio-economic status and community. The burden of diabetes is not only a personal struggle but also a national concern. The profound physical, emotional and financial strain of diabetes is well-documented. This disease, if not managed properly, can lead to devastating complications, such as blindness, kidney failure, heart disease and even amputations. However, despite the availability of effective treatments, a staggering one in four Canadians with diabetes has reported that, solely because of cost, they have not adhered to their prescribed medical regimen. This is not a failure in health management; it is a failure in our health policy.

    The introduction of the pharmacare act is a beacon of hope. This legislation is a crucial step towards eliminating the financial barriers that too many Canadians face in accessing essential diabetes medications. By ensuring that no one is left out because they cannot afford their medicine, we would not only improve individual health outcomes but also enhance our nation's health security. The importance of this act for the diabetes community cannot be overstated. Improved access to necessary medications would mean better disease management and control, which would significantly reduce the risk of severe complications. This is a direct investment in the health of millions of people, and the ripple effects would be seen throughout our health care system. Fewer complications from diabetes mean reduced hospital admissions, fewer medical emergencies and a general decrease in the health care burden on our system. We are not just providing medication; we are restoring opportunities and enhancing the well-being of millions of Canadians.

    I would say to all Canadians living with diabetes that this legislation is for them. It is a testament to our belief that, together, as a united nation, we can tackle the challenges of chronic disease with compassion and resolve. Let us move forward with the assurance that our government is committed to their health and well-being. Let us embrace this change, not just for those living with diabetes, but for us all, for a healthier, stronger Canada.

    To conclude, Bill C-64 lays out our plan for universal, single-payer coverage for contraception and diabetes medications. Through our bilateral health agreements with the provinces and territories, the Canadian dental care plan and now pharmacare, we are delivering on the promise that every Canadian deserves better health care.

    Madam Speaker, one of the great failings of the Canadian medical system is that we stopped at the moment we brought in universal health care, which Canadians believe in and want, and did not go further in bringing forth the pharmacare every other G7 country has.

    Considering what we are seeing now with right-wing provincial governments, such as Doug Ford leaving community after community in Ontario with ERs closed on the weekends and the fact that they will hire privatized nurses at huge costs while underfunding the public system, is the hon. member concerned that we are going to see the likes of premiers Danielle Smith, Scott Moe and Doug Ford try to kill a really important initiative to help Canadians? How will we prevent them from doing that?

    Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right that the health care system is not perfect today. A lot of challenges are being faced, and the responsibility lies with the provinces.

    The federal government has taken enormous steps to improve the health care of the country as a whole. We have allocated $198 billion, mostly to the provinces and territories, to deliver better health care. My wish is that the provinces step up and shoulder their part of the responsibility to develop quality care for all residents.

    Madam Speaker, I will follow up that question with some facts about Saskatchewan. Its provincial government is deeply engaged in assisting, as an example, its seniors get the medications they need if they do not have their own third party plan. My mother is a senior.

    This program would not be sufficient and would be far more expensive than the care we have. There is a possibility that third party providers that exist now would throw up their hands, and no longer provide the kind of care that over 90% of Canadians are already receiving, to allow this program to exist in its stead. In challenging the provincial government in an area that is its responsibility and in which it is doing good work, is the member suggesting that maybe Canadians expect and fear this reality?

    Madam Speaker, health care is important for all Canadians. It is the responsibility of all levels of government to work together collaboratively so Canadians get the quality health care they deserve.

    Unfortunately, certain provinces are not in a very collaborative mood when it comes to dealing with the federal government, which has taken enormous steps during the last several years to provide additional funding to the health care system.

    Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague suffers from diabetes, so I am certainly interested in hearing his perspective as to why we are focusing on the two areas of diabetes and contraceptives at this point. Why are we seeing the prioritization of diabetes and contraceptives in this bill?

    Madam Speaker, there was a certain period of time in my life in Canada when I did not have any prescription coverage; therefore, as a diabetic myself, I understand personally how important it is that this sort of support is given to people who do not have coverage available to them.

    As I mentioned in my speech, this is the first step towards dealing with that. We have to start somewhere. Diabetes affects a vast number of people. Coverage for contraceptives is available to about nine million Canadians, and diabetes coverage is available to about 3.7 million. This is a step towards a single universal pharmacare system in Canada.

    Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today and speak in support of this bill to bring in the first stages of national pharmacare to this country. Pharmacare has figured as a commitment in the Liberal platform. I would go further and say that it is an extension, really, of an arc of social justice that began many decades ago with hospital insurance. Before we had medicare, we had hospital insurance. If someone went to the hospital they did not have to pay, but then they would have to pay if they went to see their physician. Then, of course, we brought in medicare.

     On that score, I would like to come back to something that the member for Cumberland—Colchester said that made me think back to 50 or 60 years ago. He said, in reference to dental care, that the plan for dental care would result in the dentist focusing more on the relationship with the payer, the insurance companies, than on the relationship with the patient.

    That was one of the main criticisms of medicare in 1970 when the federal and provincial governments were implementing medicare. At the time, many medical professionals, doctors, said it would not be good because it would bureaucratize their profession as they would have to deal with government bureaucracy and that would leave less time to deal with patients. In the final analysis, we saw that it was a more efficient system. Doctors know that they will get paid. They do not have to hire a bill collection agency to collect medical bills and so on. It is funny that we are going back to arguments that were raised 70 years ago when there was opposition, initially, to implementing medicare in this country.

    I would like to go back, for a moment, to the pandemic, because I think it is important. The pandemic was a watershed moment in so many ways. I think it will take decades of analysis and doctoral theses, maybe, to really understand how the pandemic changed our world. However, the pandemic did something for public policy that I am not sure we think enough about. It showed us that we can deliver support to citizens in ways that we never thought possible. If one had asked the government before the pandemic to offer support directly to Canadians through the CRA, through payments based on attestation, one would have been shut down right away. The bureaucrats and politicians would have said that it was absolutely impossible.

    We proved that it was possible in a crisis to bring financial support to Canadians in a very streamlined way, in a very direct way and in a very timely way. I think that gave confidence to government that it could deliver other services in a very efficient way. Dental care is one example of that. I would bet that if someone had said we could deliver dental care directly through dentists with an insurance company making payments to dental offices and so forth, people would have said we could not do that as lots of bureaucracy would be needed. However, the pandemic showed us that we can do things directly and efficiently.

    That brings me to pharmacare and this initial building block of a national pharmacare system. We have heard the Conservatives raise the spectre of a national pharmacare system requiring immense amounts of bureaucracy, but we have learned from the past that these kinds of services with this kind of financial support can be delivered rather effectively.

    Now, we know that provincial health care systems across this country are bogged down in bureaucracy. We have seen some of the tragic consequences of that, but when we are talking about the delivery of drugs, each province has a very efficient and effective pharmacy network that already liaises with governments and with private insurance companies, such that when one gets a prescription, the pharmacist already knows that one is covered by a private insurer, or if one is not covered by a private insurer, they know that one is covered by the government system. There is already a very efficient infrastructure in place to deliver national pharmacare with the help of the infrastructure set up within the provinces, so I do not believe this idea that national pharmacare is going to create a heavy burden of bureaucracy.

    The member for Cumberland—Colchester talked about the so-called blue seal program that his party is putting forward as a way of recognizing credentials for foreign-trained doctors. Our government is already doing that. Taking away from the fact that it is already provincial jurisdiction to recognize credentials, we do not hear any objections from the other side about invading provincial jurisdiction when we talk about recognizing credentials. The recognition of credentials is, in fact, something that is done by provincial colleges of medical professionals. All of a sudden, the invasion of provincial jurisdiction does not seem to enter into the picture.

    However, the point is that, if we want to do that kind of thing, we are still going to need some bureaucracy. We are going to have to have some government employees who are coordinating something. That is just the way it is in modern governments. Sometimes I fear that the Conservatives do not understand the realities of modern governments, but I will not get into all of that right now.

    In terms of the role of the federal government when it comes to pharmaceutical products, let me go back to the CERB. It is conventional wisdom that it is the provincial governments that deliver social assistance in this country, yet during the pandemic I did not hear any provincial governments complaining that we were providing CERB to citizens in need. I did not hear it then. All of a sudden, it is back in the picture.

    Back to pharmaceuticals, the federal government is deeply involved in the pharmaceutical industry. It does inspections of pharmaceutical companies. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has a role in determining the prices of pharmaceuticals. Health Canada is involved in approving drugs for safety and medical devices. This idea that there is this clean-cut distinction between the federal government and the provinces when it comes to those kinds of products is, I think, a bit of a stretch.

    That being said, I am not in the government but I think I can speak on behalf of the government. The federal government is not seeking to manage more things. We have lots of responsibilities. If the provinces can do something well, why not? If the provinces can achieve the goals that we have set, based on what Canadians want, then why not? The federal government is not seeking to manage all aspects of pharmacare, but I think that we are responding to the wishes and priorities of Canadians in proposing this plan.

    I would like to come back to another argument that was raised by the Conservatives in this debate. Somehow, in a kind of twisted logic, it was suggested that national pharmacare is going to cause inflation. I do not understand that, but I could be wrong. Maybe I have a blind spot and I do not see all of the logic of the argument, but how can providing free drugs to Canadians who need drugs fuel pharmaceutical price inflation?

    Pharmacare is an affordability measure. The Conservatives claim to care so much about affordability, but every time we want to do something on affordability, whether child care, pharmacare or dental care, they vote against it. I do not think they care about affordability.

    Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points on the things I have heard this morning.

    Of course, the NDP is talking about cuts that were there during the Harper era. If one were to look at the amount of money from the budgets over the years, when the Liberals first took power, that was the first time that it had ever ducked below the 3% floor that was given. That statement is certainly one that they talk a lot about, but it is incorrect.

    The other question I would like to ask the member has to do with the formularies that the provinces already have. In order to get drugs approved, we go through the federal system, but then it goes into the provinces and they make the decisions on how much they can afford to cover. This is different around the country.

    I am wondering if the member is at least curious about what the consequences will be when that decision comes from the federal government versus the provinces, whose responsibility it is to deliver health care.

    Madam Speaker, the whole issue around pharmacoeconomics is very complex because governments look at the potential benefits of drug use versus the costs, and it becomes a budgetary and political decision. What we are doing with pharmacare is providing more funding so we can surmount these political and budgetary obstacles to providing Canadians with the drugs they need for free.

    Madam Speaker, I have been listening intently to my Conservative colleagues, who promise something and then oppose it. For example, they really pushed for the suicide hotline and then voted against it. They tried to cut off the funding for it. One wonders why they do these things.

    I was noticing the Conservative deputy leader was a lobbyist for AbbVie. This is a pharmaceutical company that jacked up the price of medications for senior citizens by 470%. We know who the Conservatives work for. They are not there for seniors. They are not there for ordinary people. They are freaked out that, if people have access to medication and the Conservatives get into power, they are not going to be able to rip off seniors to benefit the lobbyists, who are pretty much running the national Conservative Party and certainly the deputy leader. This is why we have seen their complete unwillingness to take on grocery price hikes, because the member in Stornoway's boss is a Loblaws lobbyist.

    I would like to ask the member what he thinks about a party that would go along with jacking up medication for senior citizens by 470% to benefit its friends.

    Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that I hope those individuals will not end up working in the health minister's office. That would be a tragedy, of course. However, what is important is that we have a lobbyist registration system and that lobbyist registration system ensures we have the kind of information the hon. member has taken good care to collate and to share with the House and with Canadians.

    Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can expand on his comments regarding the recognition of credentials. The Conservatives are going around misleading Canadians by indicating that they have this grand blue seal program. It is as if they are going to form government and all the individuals who have credentials would get their credentials recognized. It is as if these individuals would just need to write a Conservative exam and miraculously they would be able to work in health care across Canada, across the provinces and so forth.

    Would the member not agree that is exceptionally misleading to a very vulnerable component of our communities?

    Madam Speaker, I agree. They are not just doing that with the blue seal program. They are doing it with climate change by suggesting there is some kind of magic bullet that does not cost anybody anything and we can magically get rid of greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, they need to be more forthcoming—

    You guys can't even be honest with each other.

    Madam Speaker, the opposition needs to be more forthcoming and be a little more direct and frank with Canadians.

    I want to remind the hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill that, if he has questions and comments, he should wait for the appropriate time and not try to contribute to the debate until such time.

    Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

    Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-64.

    We have heard some doozies over the last day. Of course, today is budget day, so we will hear some more doozies about the billions upon billions that will be spent and heaped on the backs of taxpayers.

    One of the reasons it is such a great honour to speak to Bill C-64 is that I get a chance to split my time with the newly minted Conservative member for Durham. Finally, we have a true blue Conservative in Durham, and I cannot wait to hear his speech. I believe it may be his maiden speech today. He is a great member of Parliament. If anybody has not heard his story, it is a true testament that a person can do anything they want if they set their mind to it and do not accept the barriers that life has placed before them. He is a cancer survivor. He was ruled illiterate in grade school and then went to Yale School of Law just seven years later. I am so honoured to share a bench and split my time with my colleague from Durham.

    We are speaking about Bill C-64, which is yet another promise or plan of the Prime Minister's to hold onto whatever shreds of power he has. It is essentially a power grab, again. We will be talking a little about some of this announcement, as well some of the other failed announcements that the Prime Minister and his “speNDP” coalition have undertaken in the last four or five years.

    From the onset, I will say that I believe that if a Canadian needs medication, we should be doing everything in our power to make sure they have access to the medications they need. However, this bill is not a pharmacare bill. It is a plan or a promise to work towards a bigger pharmacare system. Where did we hear that previously? Oh, that was with the dental care plan that we saw earlier, and now we are hearing that less than 10% of dentists across our country are signing up to it. It is a failed system. I will have more on that as we go further.

    The Conference Board of Canada estimates that over 97% of Canadians are already eligible for some form of drug coverage. Over 27 million Canadians rely on privately administered workplace plans. I spoke with insurers who have no idea how this pharmacare plan would work. Are they to scrap their plans altogether? What happens to those 27 million Canadians who already have a plan?

    Despite what the health minister said, that he has a great working relationship with Quebec, that was proven wrong time and time again. I believe it was the Quebec health minister who went public to say that there are no talks and that they do not agree with what the federal minister is saying regarding health care. We have seen this time and again with the Liberal government.

    Going back to 2015, the member for Papineau campaigned on doing things differently. He campaigned on having the most open and transparent government in the history of our country. Wow. The one thing he has accomplished is having the most scandal-plagued government in the history of our country, and the NDP coalition is complicit in the cover-up of those scandals.

    The pharmacare bill is just another in a long list of bills that allowed the Liberals to get in front of the cameras and say they are getting things done for Canadians, when they are really just trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

    Now, the Liberals and the NDP will stand up, pound their fists and say how bad Stephen Harper was in the dark years of Stephen Harper. Here is a news flash. The Liberals have been in power for nine years. If it was a priority for them, then they could have gotten it done. They had a majority, and now they have a majority with the NDP, so they could get things done if they really wanted to get things done.

    Bill C-64 is nothing more than a photo op; that is it. It does not actually do anything concrete. It talks about, “to consider when working towards the implementation of national universal pharmacare”. In other words, it is just another broken election promise. Why does the government not work with pharmaceutical companies to bring down the cost of all drugs to Canadians? That is a novel idea, but nothing is mentioned in there. All we get are future promises and no plan. Let us really, truly be honest with Canadians. This is a not a pharmacare plan; it is an empty promise that will not even come close to covering every medication that Canadians use.

    I spoke about promises. We have heard that Nova Scotia has a bit of plan. We heard that Quebec, obviously, has a plan and was not even consulted on how it has done it. My province of B.C. has the fair pharmacare plan. As a matter of fact, we have 12 plans under that one plan for British Columbians who have trouble accessing medication.

    What the Liberals have proven time and again is that, after eight years, they neither trust nor respect Canadians. Apparently, they also think that Canadians are too foolish to see through the truth that is right before their eyes. The truth is that after eight long, miserable years, the NDP-Liberal government is simply not worth the cost. We say that time and time again. With this government, the choice is between costly programs and future promises, or should I say false promises, and Canadians know that NDP-Liberal promises never come true.

    After eight long years of this Prime Minister, there have been so many broken promises. In 2015, he promised affordable housing, and then he doubled the mortgage, rent and down payment costs. It now takes 25 years to save for a down payment on the average home. In Vancouver, a person has to earn almost $250,000 just to afford a home. Most young Canadians believe that they will never be able to afford a home. That used to be the dream; now it is just a nightmare. He promised that the carbon tax would not cost us anything, and now we find out that over 60% of Canadians pay more because of that tax. He doubled the tax; actually, he raised it by 23% on April 1, which was an April Fools' Day joke on all of us.

    I talked briefly about dental care, and I want to read something from a dental office in Prince George, which wrote that what has been put out to the public as far as the coverage is totally not true. The dental office said that the government has said to the public is that this is free dental, but that it's nowhere close to being free dental, unfortunately. That's why, they said, there's frustration from patients who are signing up and phoning around. Patients are saying that they have free dental now, and they, the dental offices, have to give them the bad news.

    She continued by saying that there hasn't been a whole lot of information released to dentists, and the government won't give any more information until you register. It hasn't been totally honest and transparent with the dentists, and the dentists are leery of signing up. She said that it was confusing for them, because they haven't been getting all the facts, and that until the facts are better explained to dental offices, dentists and owners, they're not going to register for something if they don't know what they're getting involved in.

    That is par for the course with this government. Its members stand before the public and the cameras, perhaps with a tissue to their eye; they put their hand on their heart and say that they truly care. However, the reality is that they are not doing the work. We have good people across the way who are actually waking up and seeing the failures and the lies of their front bench.

    It is about time that this failed NDP-Liberal coalition moved out of the way so that the member for Carleton, Canada's future prime minister, can start righting the wrongs of the last eight years. It is going to be tough, but we have the team and we are ready to do it.

    Madam Speaker, I must say that I disagree immensely with almost everything from the start to the end of the comments that my colleague made. Of course, I am not going to add to them. I would like to know what he would be doing, what your government would be doing and what your party would be doing, if it had the opportunity to become the government, which I hope it does not, actually, because I look back on the years of the previous Conservative government, and it was a question of taking away and deteriorating health care.

    I think the dental program and the pharmacare program are really important to all my constituents. I am not getting the complaints my colleague was mentioning. My constituents are very grateful to have that program and are already using it. I would expect that my colleague has many people in his constituency who would be very glad to be able to access this program. Is he at a point of eventually supporting this program?

    I want to remind the member that a couple of times she actually was directing comments directly to the member, but she did correct herself at the end.

    The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George has the floor.

    Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague across the way.

    I believe my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester, who is a former physician, mentioned this earlier. We have to, first, eliminate the wait times Canadians face. For example, six million Canadians cannot get a primary care physician. They cannot get their medication if they need that. We would work with the pharmaceutical companies, writ large, to make sure that we were driving down the costs. We would work with the PMPRB. We may even just revamp the PMPRB so that we would be getting those drugs approved faster. Canadians with rare diseases could get the drugs that their friends and families seem to be getting faster in other countries, and they could be looked after sooner. We would develop a rare disease strategy so that those Canadians struggling with rare diseases could get the help they need when they need it.

    Madam Speaker, we know that the Conservatives have consistently opposed pharmacare. We heard my colleague from Timmins—James Bay highlight that the Conservative deputy leader was a lobbyist for AbbVie, a large pharma company in North America that jacked up its prices on medications for seniors by over 470%. Who really needs pharmacare lobbyists when we have Conservatives here?

    I want clarity, because I heard him say, misleading the House, that people in British Columbia are covered for insulin. That is not true.

    I am going to give my colleague another chance to clarify that insulin is not free in British Columbia, and in fact, it is a huge cost to many British Columbians, especially working-class British Columbians. Is he going to oppose, for those British Columbians who require insulin, this legislation that would provide them the support they need on life-saving medication, especially when someone loses their job and their deductible is no longer within their affordability level.

    I would like some clarification from my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.

    I just want to remind the hon. member that he might want to retract something. He said the hon. member misled the House. He knows he cannot say indirectly what he cannot say directly.

    Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that statement, but I would like clarification, because my colleague was speaking on behalf of British Columbians, saying that they are fully covered. That is not true.

    The hon. member withdrew it. He does not need to elaborate. I just asked him to withdraw.

    The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George has the floor.

    Madam Speaker, most of that member's minute-and-a-half-long rant was incomprehensible. I could not understand what he was saying. However, on one comment that he did mention is that they like to point fingers at other groups and lobbyists. I will remind the member that his leader's brother is a lobbyist for a big grocer. They may not like the answer. They obviously do not like the answer, so they are shouting over top—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order.

    I want to remind members that they have an opportunity to ask questions, but unless they are being recognized again, they should not be yelling out or trying to ask other questions.

    The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George has the floor.

    Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that when we speak the truth here, those members take offence to it, because all they want on the record is their misinformation. They can say everything they want about the Conservatives, but when we fire back at them, they take offence to it.

    I hope I did not hurt the member's feelings by not answering, but I am sure we will speak off-line and hug it out afterward. I will end there.

    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have seen a lot in the House, but since the member could not answer the question, he does not need to attack the emotion of my colleague. He does not need to hug him; he needs to tell the truth. It is a simple thing.

    This is a point of debate, not a point of order.

    Resuming debate, the hon. member for Durham.

    Madam Speaker, I rise in the chamber today as Canada's newest member of Parliament elected to represent the riding of Durham. I have a very clear message to deliver on behalf of my community in Durham. We are tired of the Prime Minister's broken promises. We are tired of the Prime Minister promising to fix this and that and, in return, what we receive is a life that is harder and more expensive.

    The Conservatives believe that Canadians deserve better and that the topic of debate today, pharmacare, is just the latest example of the Prime Minister promising big things, only to disappoint the people of Canada. I put my name on a ballot and wanted this job as a member of Parliament because, despite the Prime Minister's best efforts, I am optimistic and hopeful about the future of our country. I believe that once we have a new leader in this great land, we will see brighter days ahead.

    My optimism does not come from these big deficits or big budget announcements. My optimism comes from my knowledge of the people of Canada and the people of Durham. My optimism comes from people like Kirk Kemp, who runs one of the biggest and most important agricultural businesses in Canada, Algoma Orchards. As he becomes more successful in his business, he only gives back more to our community, supporting initiatives like the Bowmanville Hospital redevelopment.

    My optimism comes from people like Dr. Kan Chandra, a dentist in Courtice, Ontario, who has built a tremendous business, provides for his family and gives back to our community as a connector for Durham's growing Tamil community.

    My optimism comes from Kim and Leon Morrow over on Taunton Road East in Oshawa, who scrape together every spare dollar they can find and every spare moment to provide guidance and mentorship to young men and women who may otherwise fall into the pitfalls that await struggling youth. However, Kim and Leon have their backs. That is why I am hopeful about the future of the country.

    I am very honoured to stand in this beautiful building and I appreciate the chance to dress up in a suit and tie, but my heart was not shaped in places like this. My heart was shaped by people like my grandfather, Robert McFarlane, may he rest in peace. My grandfather worked as a school custodian for decades in the Toronto District School Board, a man who swept and mopped the floors, who kept the classrooms tidy and locked up at the end of the night so that children had a place to learn and teachers had a place to work. I carry his story with me.

    I come into this job very much a servant, like my grandpa. I am here to protect what makes the country special, to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians, to ensure our country continues to be a place where people from all over the world can come and find a better life, people like my grandpa who came here from Scotland, my grandmother who came here from Ireland and my father who came here from Kenya.

    I am aware that there is a Liberal playbook that gets used against people who disagree with the Prime Minister, a playbook that likes to marginalize and vilify anyone who has the audacity to stand up and say that what is happening in our country right now is not right. That playbook the Prime Minister likes to use that casts people who disagree with him as racists. I would welcome the Prime Minister to try that with me. Based on our history, I do not think that will go so well for him.

    The Prime Minister is completely out of touch with the needs and desires, hopes and dreams of our very diverse country and diverse communities like the one I represent in Durham. He is welcome to take his claims that people who disagree with him are racist to my African father and see how that goes for him.

    The Prime Minister also uses the Liberal playbook to marginalize and vilify Canadians who disagree with him by calling those of us who believe in traditional family values bigots. I ask him to come to my diverse riding in Durham and try that on us, where we have Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Jews living together, all people who believe that mothers and fathers matter. He is welcome to try that with us.

    I know his Liberal playbook also likes to say that people who disagree with him do not care about the working class or do not care about vulnerable people. That is not going to work on me either. I am not a trust fund baby. Like most people in the country, I have clawed, scraped and worked hard for everything I have. I do not think the Prime Minister can say the same thing.

    The reality is this. He is welcome to try that message on people like my mom. She would love to have a conversation with him. She is a woman who raised three children by herself. She is 68 years old and continues to work hard every day, because she cannot afford to retire in the NDP-Liberal economy. The Liberal playbook is not going to work. The Liberals can try their greatest hits. Tune up the guitar, tune up the banjo, the greatest hits are not hitting anymore.

    I am here to deliver that message very clearly on behalf of my community in Durham and people everywhere else in our great country who are unhappy with what is happening, who are feeling frustrated because they are unable to say what is happening in their hearts and their minds, do not feel validated and affirmed by the reality they experience not being echoed by many of the institutions across the country that have bought into a narrative that simply does not reflect reality.

    With the remainder of my time, I would also like to deliver a message to any young men and women across the country who might hear my words. My presence in this chamber is a glitch in the system. I am not supposed to be here. When I was 15 years old, I failed the Ontario literacy test. I was labelled illiterate by the Ontario education system, but I am here.

    At the age of 30, I was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. I sat in a recliner with an IV in my arm, pumping my body with chemotherapy drugs. I laid on a hospital bed as radiation lasers ran along my spine for months, but I am here. I took on woke censorship from corporate Canada, looked it dead in the eye and I am here. I have been the subject of hit piece after hit piece from Liberal news media. Guess what, I am here.

    The reality is that many young men and women are facing a variety of challenges across the country right now, some of whom are facing things I cannot even fathom. As long as I stand in the House of Commons, as long as I am honoured to call myself a member of Parliament, I hope I can be a walking, talking reminder that people should never give up. They should not give up on themselves, their families, their communities and our country. As long as I am here, I will not give up on them either.

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for sharing his personal stories and congratulate him on his first speech in the chamber.

    Could the member give his personal perspective on the principles of a national pharmacare program?

    Madam Speaker, my concern in being asked about pharmacare is that I have been drawn into a debate that assumes the Liberal-NDP government will do what it says it will do. Over the course of the last eight years, we have seen that is simply not going to happen.

    We have a country full of people, tens of millions of people, who have been led to believe over and over again that the Liberal-NDP government and the Prime Minister are going to deliver for the hard-working people of our country, yet that has never happened.

    Before I discuss anything like the principles of pharmacare, I would like to be convinced that something substantive actually will happen for the people of Canada. I would love to go back to my riding and say that the Liberals have a plan for us. Unfortunately, everything I have seen since I got here last Monday has indicated otherwise.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating my colleague on his election and his first speech.

    I recall a great quote by Scott Brison, who sat on both the Liberal and Conservative benches. When he sat in the House, he said that although he did not share a lot of the policies of the Conservative Party, regardless of where we sat in the House, we could have a huge impact and difference for Canadians. I hope my colleague will take that to heart and work collectively with members to try to find solutions to support Canadians as we walk forward together.

    With respect to the question on insulin, my colleague cited the delays by the Liberal government, and I agree, but does he believe that if insulin were free of charge, it would be of benefit to his constituents and would he be willing to work with us to find a pathway to expedite that?

    Madam Speaker, when I was a cancer patient at North York General Hospital and Sunnybrook hospital, I saw many people in very dire health circumstances, people facing all sorts of challenges, some of with whom I shared a cancer ward. What was very clear to me was that we needed programs that could help people who did not have the money to purchase the drugs they needed. The cancer ward at North York General Hospital has a provincial program to help people with drugs.

    What I continue to be confused about, as I hear this debate on pharmacare, is why there is not a greater recognition of the need to work with the provinces to solve some of these problems. I saw people right beside me, hooked up to the same IVs as I was, getting their body pumped with chemotherapy drugs. They depended on those provincial programs to get the health care they needed. What I worry about, and I think what my fellow cancer patients at North York General Hospital would worry as well, including cancer patients all across the country, is whether this is a matter of creating more bureaucracy in Ottawa or whether we are actually concerned about providing people with what they need at an affordable price.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Durham, has had the opportunity to knock on doors very recently. I wonder if you can enlighten the House on the issues that you—

    I would remind the hon. member to address his questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member.

    I apologize, Madam Speaker. I was caught up in the moment.

    Could the member elaborate on the issues he heard, when he was knocking on doors in his most recent election, so all Canadians can understand what the issues are out there?

    Madam Speaker, the short answer to my colleague's question is affordability. People from all ages, whether they are seniors who are concerned about their pensions and not being able to afford a good quality of life, or people my own age who are living in their parents' basement, hoping to move out and start a family one day, across generations, across cultures, across languages, are concerned about affordability and whether the NDP-Liberal government can make life easier so we can move forward with our lives. What is uniting Canadians right now is their concern about affordability.

    Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise today to speak to a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-64. I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

    This is important legislation because, for decades, we have been talking about the need to bring in pharmacare. I look at this as the first step in bringing in pharmacare, which could cover a whole host of drugs and medicines that are very important for people. I would agree with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who was speaking earlier, that this is about preventative health care. This is about helping people before they get to the point when they would need to go to an emergency room. This is about getting people their very important medication.

    When we have an issue like this that further builds on our health care system, which is a health care system that has developed over generations through, at times, very difficult partnerships and relationships with provinces, I am disheartened to see that, in the very first speech on this issue, when Conservatives stood, they brought in a motion to amend the bill. The amendment would basically substitute everything after the word “That” with “The House decline to give second reading”. That is all the Conservatives did.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, now they are clapping. Conservatives are clapping as a result of this non-motion. They could have just voted against the bill to say they were not interested. Instead, they introduced a second vote. It will take 10 minutes to vote down their amendment before we vote in favour and pass this very important piece of legislation. I imagine that, much like there was with the piece of legislation on sustainable jobs, which we finally voted on yesterday, there will be obstruction after obstruction with Conservatives playing with the bill at committee and through the various stages of the House.

    I ask myself why Conservatives would be so dead set against legislation like this. In my opinion, this is about helping people, particularly the people who really need help. The vast majority of Conservative donors, and the people they look to for fundraising, are individuals who, quite frankly, could probably afford to have private insurance or work in a job that provides insurance. The individuals I see who would really benefit from this legislation are those vulnerable individuals in our society who are not covered by health care or pharmacare plans or who do not have insurance in one way or another.

    One of the criticisms we hear from Conservatives is that this is about provincial jurisdiction. The Conservatives have said that this is provincial jurisdiction and ask why we are getting in the way of it. I will then ask them why they voted in favour of the national child care plan. They got up to talk down the plan for hours on end, but ultimately, they ended up voting in favour of it. That was something we needed to work together with the provinces on to make it a reality. The Conservatives saw a benefit in voting in favour of that, so they did. However, they cannot seem to see the same way forward with this particular issue.

    This bill would introduce pharmacare by first setting up the system to provide for two drugs: insulin, for individuals with diabetes, and contraceptives. This is extremely important. There are nine million women and gender-diverse Canadians all across the country who would get access to the contraception and reproductive autonomy they deserve. This is really important in the context we are in, and I will explain why.

    Right now, when we look south of the border, we are literally watching state legislatures and the Supreme Court of the United States make rulings that are further confining the ability of a woman's right to choose. We are seeing legislation being adopted that is something that we thought would have been dreamt up, that we would have assumed the United States had moved away from decades ago. Canada will stand up to a very aggressive position to say that we will not go down the same road as the United States. Despite the fact that many Conservatives, I am sure, would love to do that, we will not. We will ensure that a woman would have not only the right to choose, but also free access to the necessary medication specifically for contraceptive purposes.

    I will certainly be voting in favour of this. I look forward to this bill coming to the House so we can have that vote, if the Conservatives ever let us get there.

    Madam Speaker, in my province of British Columbia, we are sending cancer patients for therapy to the United States. Does the member have concerns about provinces sending people to the American system?

    The Minister of Health has said that we do not want to go to the United States' system, yet our public health care system in British Columbia is sending patients to the United States. Here we are, talking about expanding more bureaucracy, when we have provinces such as mine that are sending patients there. What does the member have to say about that sad state of affairs?

    Madam Speaker, if I understand the member correctly, what he is saying is that his province has to send people to the U.S. for treatment. I do not know about that, but I will take his word for it that he believes it. He is saying his province has to send people to the United States, so we should not try to do anything else to help Canadians.

     This legislation is about developing a national framework. I am sorry that there are issues in his province with health care. He should come to Ontario. I would love to have a chat with him about the issues that Doug Ford has created in Ontario.

     However, that is beside the point. What we are talking about is developing a national strategy as it relates to pharmacare. This member can find all the excuses in the book that he wants to vote against this. At the end of the day, what he is going to do is vote against helping vulnerable Canadians, in particular, getting access to the medications they need.

    Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech of my colleague with great interest, and I know he is a great advocate for health care for Canadians.

    I would like to ask him about the situation in Quebec. Maybe he is not that familiar with it, but we did hear how many unions are in favour of our health care plan, even if their members have employer drug insurance.

    Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question because we have different levels of coverage throughout our country. Those levels of coverage, directly or indirectly, are going to correlate to whether individuals are more wealthy or not. Therefore, somebody who works in a corporation, for example an executive high up in the corporation, probably has really good coverage. As well, within the unions, there are going to be different levels of coverage.

    This is about accepting, realizing and coming to the conclusion that we all deserve the exact same level of coverage, regardless of who we are, where we work or what our income is.

    Madam Speaker, in responding to the member from Quebec's question, the member just proved that he knows absolutely nothing about Quebec's pharmacare program. Everyone gets the same coverage and has access to the same molecules. The example he gave makes it absolutely clear that this government does not know what it is talking about when it talks about pharmacare. They are sorcerers' apprentices.

    Madam Speaker, the member is referring to the question that was previously asked and not to my answer. I would say that maybe the member did not hear what the question was.

    The question the member asked me was specifically about union support for this bill and unions in Quebec that support it. I would encourage my Bloc colleague, who stands up quite often for the workers of Quebec, to consider what the union folks in Quebec are saying about this legislation. From what I hear, they are saying that they are supportive of it, so maybe the Bloc members should really give some consideration to that when it comes time to vote for this.

    Madam Speaker, it is a different world up here in the Yukon. I am going to tell colleagues a few reasons why. Starting north on the Dempster Highway, someone can have the hike of their life in the magical Tombstone mountains. Then, drop into Dawson City, dine at BonTon, where each delicious bite is locally sourced. Then, get to the downtown for the sourtoe cocktail with a real toe that must touch one's lips. Then sally on to Diamond Tooth Gerties for a look at the showgirls and a round of roulette. Sleep at Bombay Peggy's, a Victorian Inn with a lubricious past.

    Yes, tourism is big in the Yukon, thanks to supports like the tourism growth program and the indigenous tourism fund. The Yukon itself is gold.

    Now, winter in the Yukon, “it's a little bit metal”, they say. We have snowmobiles, mountains, trails, ice fishing, skiing and fat biking. After it all, come soak in the soothing pools of Eclipse hot springs and gaze up at the northern lights. We have summer, fall or winter, but we do not really do spring. It is a different world up here, but be warned: once in the Yukon, one may never leave.

    Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be the honorary president of the Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life in Lotbinière/Lévis, which will take place on June 8.

    As a symbol of perseverance and a message of hope for those affected by cancer, participants of all ages have been joining forces and taking turns walking along a track or road since 1999.

    The highly anticipated event will be held at Terry Fox park in Saint-Apollinaire from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. the next morning.

    Funds raised are used to support innovative research into all types of cancer, provide the most extensive support network to improve the lives of people with cancer and shape public health policies.

    I invite all members to set up teams and walk with me at the Lotbinière/Lévis Relay for Life in support of a noble cause that is especially important to me.

    Mr. Speaker, the month of April marks Sikh Heritage Month. It is an opportunity for us to reflect on, celebrate and educate future generations about the important role that Sikh Canadians have played, and continue to play, in communities across the country. Saturday, April 13, many of us celebrated Vaisakhi, which marks the creation of the Khalsa and the Sikh articles of faith.

    Canada is the home to over 770,000 Sikh Canadians, making it one of the largest Sikh diasporas in the world. Since the arrival of Sikh immigrants in the late 19th century, Sikh Canadians have contributed immensely to Canada's social, economic, political and cultural fabric. This month and beyond, let us recognize and embrace the diversity that make our country strong and inclusive.

    Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the Senate will vote on the future of Bill C‑282 and supply-managed sectors in advance of upcoming international negotiations.

    We are asking members of the Senate to respect the House of Commons' solid vote at third reading and to vote in favour of sending Bill C‑282 to committee.

    Protecting supply-managed producers also means protecting their relevant suppliers and the entire agricultural ecosystem for the good of agricultural production as a whole. It means ensuring that our rural areas have a stable, prosperous and dynamic population.

    Most of all, supply management is about our people delivering a high-quality, home-grown product for our people. That is how we ensure our food security.

    We ask that members of the Senate vote in favour. The economies of our rural areas and villages depend on it.

    Mr. Speaker, it was a privilege to welcome French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal to Canada last week, on his first official foreign visit outside the European Union.

    As chair of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association, I also met with my French counterparts, Christopher Weissberg, Chair of the French branch of the Association, and Senator Yan Chantrel, Chair of the France–Canada Friendship Group in the Senate.

    Canada and France have a shared history and enjoy a close friendship, which we also celebrated alongside the Canadian and French prime ministers as we gathered at the Amicitia France-Canada monument at Beechwood National Cemetery.

    Canada and France remain key partners and share a number of priorities, such as climate change, the Francophonie, innovation and so on.

    I would like to thank the entire French delegation for this wonderful and fruitful visit.

    Mr. Speaker, today I would like to commemorate a dear friend, Kjell Sundin.

    Kjell passed away on March 23 at 91 years old and was predeceased by his wife Hazel. He retired as an air traffic controller in 1988. He also worked in construction and was an avid traveller. Kjell is survived by his nieces, nephews and many other relatives in Canada and in Sweden.

    Kjell gave back in many ways, supporting local fundraisers and helping people who needed a hand, like driving friends to appointments. Kjell had a great memory, was a wonderful storyteller and loved politics. He would start a conversation by saying, “I put out signs for Diefenbaker.” Kjell was the head sign guy on campaigns for all levels of government locally. His wooden sign design has been duplicated all over western Canada. In politics, he was always the first to volunteer and to mentor others, and was a serious campaigner.

    My family, Larry, Daniel and I, send our deepest condolences to the Sundin family. We love and will miss Kjell.

    Mr. Speaker, this week is National Tourism Week, when we celebrate a pillar of the Canadian economy that employs nearly one in every 10 Canadians.

    In my constituency of Davenport, we attract many tourists to places such as the Museum of Contemporary Art Toronto, the Drake, the many amazing art galleries, as well as countless cafés and foodie restaurants on Dundas West, West Queen West and Ossington Avenue.

    In addition, across Canada, business events represent 40% of all tourism and over $25 billion in direct GDP. That is why our federal government has invested $50 million in the international convention attraction fund through Destination Canada, which is poised to inject another $170 million into our economy.

    This demonstrates our federal government's commitment to economic growth, job creation and it positions Canada as a global hub for business excellence and innovation. Tourism truly brings people together.

    Mr. Speaker, April marks cancer awareness month, and it is an important time to spotlight the impact of cancer, recognize advancements in treatment and extend support to those affected.

    Last week, I had the privilege of meeting with the Canadian Cancer Society and of listening to the inspiring stories of brave individuals battling this disease. It is crucial to acknowledge the deep disparities in cancer risk, care and costs that can significantly affect treatment outcomes and overall experiences. The Canadian Cancer Society is tirelessly working to bridge these gaps, striving to improve health care outcomes for the two in five Canadians who will receive a cancer diagnosis in their lifetime.

    On a personal note, as a two-time breast cancer survivor first diagnosed at age 42, I cannot stress enough the importance of opening regular mammography testing for women aged 40 and above. It should be available to all Canadians. It is a simple step that can save one's life or the lives of loved ones.

    Let us all unite in the fight against cancer, raise awareness and advocate for better health.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Procurement Ombud published his damning report of the government's cozy relationship with McKinsey. McKinsey was led by Dominic Barton, a close adviser and personal friend of the Prime Minister. Barton and McKinsey were responsible for turbocharging opioid sales, fuelling the opioid crisis we face today.

    The ombud found that the Liberal government changed the requirements for contracts to allow McKinsey to qualify. In one instance, it even disqualified the winning bid to ensure McKinsey received the contract. Then it switched to sole-sourced contracts, giving McKinsey tens of millions of dollars without any justification.

    We have also learned that a minister personally approved one of these sole-sourced contracts, worth $5.7 million. No wonder the NDP-Liberal coalition blocked Conservatives from getting the unredacted documents they asked for. This cover-up must end. Canadians deserve answers.

    Mr. Speaker, a year after we landed in Canada, my father was still looking for work. He hopped on a bus from Scarborough to Windsor for a job interview at a manufacturing plant. The interview went late, and he missed the bus back to Toronto. It was dark, and he was hungry. He did not know anyone in Windsor.

    He looked up the address of the Ursuline Sisters near Holy Trinity Catholic Parish and walked the five kilometres. Sister Malgorzata Gorska opened the door, invited my dad into the warmth and brought out supper. Sister Malgorzata knows the story of immigrants, having arrived in Canada in 1965 to open the first Ursuline convent in North America. It is the way of the Ursulines, to live in service and in kindness.

    I want to take this opportunity to wish Sister Malgorzata a Happy 104th birthday and to say thanks for helping my dad that night, getting him on a bus back to Scarborough. The next day, when the phone rang, he got the job, and Windsor became home.

    Mr. Speaker, there are two sureties with this tax-and-spend Liberal government: high taxes and high spending. The results of those have been high inflation and high interest rates, which means Canadians are facing an affordability crisis with food prices and housing costs that are out of control. However, it is much worse than that. After this budget, Canadians are going to see higher taxes, higher prices and higher debt, with the carbon tax hurting our farmers and our citizens and with the worst housing crisis in a generation, with tent cities across this whole country and spending that is out of control on programs that are actually worse.

    Margaret Thatcher said it best when she said, “The problem with [this sort of government] is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

    It is easy to fix, so easy that even a toddler could get it, because it is as easy as A, B, C: Axe the tax, build the homes and cap the spending. Let us get the grown-ups in government, and let us bring it home.

    Mr. Speaker, in knocking on doors throughout the Hamilton area over the past two weekends, the message from Canadians is very clear. Life is unaffordable. Mortgage payments and rents are through the roof, and an entire generation has given up on home ownership.

    Today is the day that the NDP-Liberal government can actually listen to Canadians and can help alleviate their very real worries. That is why, in today's budget, common-sense Conservative are calling on the NDP-Liberal government to help Canadians survive. Stop doubling the housing costs. Stop taxing our farmers and food. Stop the inflationary deficits that are driving up interest rates. Stop endangering our social programs and jobs with more and more debt.

    The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Today, will he please just stop?

    Mr. Speaker, hon. members, as we kick off National Tourism Week, let us reflect on the immense economic value of tourism to Canada.

    The tourism sector accounts for one out of every 10 jobs in Canada, and four out of 10 tourism jobs are based in rural areas. Canada's tourism sector supports 623,000 jobs and 232,000 businesses.

    However, the best is yet to come.

    Just this year, we launched the Canadian Council of Tourism Ministers; announced the international convention attraction fund, which is estimated to attract $170 million to Canada's economy; and unveiled the indigenous tourism fund, the largest investment in indigenous tourism in the country's history.

    Let us celebrate the potential and resilience of Canada's tourism businesses.

    They continue to rise to new heights.

    Mr. Speaker, as of March 23, the safeguarding national security bill in Hong Kong has passed, escalating arbitrary arrests, detentions and imprisonment for Hong Kongers who protested the implementation of the national security law in 2020.

    The Liberals say that they stand with Hong Kong, yet the IRCC's processing time for the Hong Kong lifeboat scheme went from six months to 21 months. Hong Kong Link reports that over 8,000 applications are stuck, and while people wait, their work permits and study permits are expiring. They have lost jobs, health coverage and access to education for their children. Priority processing of these applications needs to continue.

    To help cut the red tape and to expedite processing, I am calling on the government to automatically renew temporary permits of PR applicants from Hong Kong and to eliminate duplication for criminal record checks. Canada must prevent human rights defenders and pro-democracy activists seeking safety from being forced to return to Hong Kong.

    One hundred days, Mr. Speaker. Soon, close to 500 employees on military bases across Canada will have been on strike for 100 days. These are men and women who support, train and assist members of the armed forces, veterans and their families on a daily basis.

    Although these workers have been on strike for almost 100 days, their demands are not unreasonable. Seeing as they are paid up to 60% less than their public service counterparts, they are simply asking that an outdated order in council, relegating them to the role of second-class workers, be repealed. Day after day, they perform the same duties as public servants and they simply want to be recognized as such.

    With the government's recent announcement of a defence policy update, focused on recruitment and retention issues within the armed forces, now is the perfect time to finally support the people who support the forces day in and day out.

    Minister, the time has come to repeal the 1982 order in council. Non-Public Funds workers deserve this respect, and the Bloc Québécois stands with them.

    Mr. Speaker, today, the NDP-Liberal government will table another inflammatory budget that will be inflationary, that will punish working Canadians by increasing taxes and that will drive the cost of living even higher.

    Exemplary community leaders like Jackie Murray, who was a proud Canadian and who knew the importance of being a responsible steward of the tax dollar, would write me consistently to axe the carbon tax, restore Canadian principles and defend our nation's interests.

    Today, the common-sense Conservatives have three ideas that we need to do. Instead of hiking the carbon tax again, they should axe the carbon tax on farmers and food, which can be done by passing Bill C-234 in its original form. Instead of announcing more failed programs, they should build homes, not bureaucracy, get the shovels in the ground and get structures in the air.

    Canadians have had enough. The government must stop the hurt until the Conservatives can fix the Liberal-NDP's costly calamity.

    Mr. Speaker, with breathtaking natural beauty, unique indigenous cultures, epic outdoor recreation, lively festivals and delicious foods, Canada has what the world wants to experience.

    Tourism is the lifeblood of our nation. It is present in every town and city across our country. It contributes over $109 billion a year to Canada's economy and it employs nearly one in 10 Canadians.

    It is powered by over two million tourism workers, who expertly showcase and host visitors to our country's finest. These individuals are more than just employees. They are cultural ambassadors who unite us as a proud nation. I salute all of those who make our tourism sector what it is while we recommit, as a country, to work with them to make it even better.

    Happy National Tourism Week.

    Mr. Speaker, common-sense Conservatives are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

    Then, in contrast, there is this Prime Minister, who is not worth the cost. After eight years, he has spent huge amounts of money with massive deficits and tax hikes, telling Canadians that someone else will pay.

    It is never the millionaire prime minister or his billionaire friends who pay. It is always welders, single mothers and seniors who face rising food costs and doubled housing costs.

    Why should today be any different?

    Mr. Speaker, what Canadians just heard was the voice of a leader who has no vision, no ambition and no plan.

    We on this side of the House understand—and Canadians understand—that a country with ambition is a country that invests. It is a country that invests to create more jobs. It is a country that invests to build more housing. It is a country that invests to encourage more growth.

    On this side of the House, we will keep fighting for Canadians every day, while the Conservatives are sure to come up with a new slogan.

    Mr. Speaker, his goal is to replace his boss. He is not the only one.

    He wants to fire this Prime Minister who is not worth the cost. After eight years, the results speak for themselves. He has doubled the cost of housing, inflated the price of food and has now doubled the national debt. The result: misery and exorbitant costs for Canadians.

    How would another $40 billion change the result now?

    Mr. Speaker, the only goal we have on this side of the House is to work every day for Canadians. That is exactly what we have been doing for eight years.

    While the Conservative leader comes up with a new slogan every week, Canadians know that slogans do not build homes. Slogans do not build growth. Slogans do not create jobs.

    They have been there for eight years. When was the last time a job was created in Canada by the Conservatives?

    On this side of the House, we will fight every day for Canadians, table a responsible budget and continue to create growth for this country.

    Mr. Speaker, while common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, after eight years the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. The results are in. He told us that, if he massively increased debts and taxes, someone else would pay for it, but of course the millionaire trust-fund Prime Minister and his billionaire friends who invite him to private islands never pay a dime. It is always seniors, small businesses and single mothers.

    Why would it be any different this time?

    Mr. Speaker, in this budget, like all others, we will take into account the economic context as well as the needs of Canadians. That means, for millennials and gen Z as well, we will unlock supply in housing, we will ensure there are supports for renters and we will make sure there is a national school food program. On this side of the House, we will make sure we do that while maintaining a strong fiscal position, AAA credit rating and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

    Slogans do not make good policy.

    Mr. Speaker, they have definitely proven that. Their slogan for the last eight years is that they can double the debt and someone else will just pay the bill, but we know who pays. Every single time, it is welders, waitresses, seniors, small businesses and single mothers who have faced doubling housing costs and unaffordable food. Now, the Liberals' solution is to do more of the same and pour on billions of dollars more of inflationary spending that will drive up interest rates, inflation and taxes.

    Why would we expect it to be any different this time?

    Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, our government has lifted 2.3 million Canadians out of poverty.

    I would like to put this to the opposition members: If they truly believe in supporting Canadians, why have they voted against the Canada dental benefit? Why have they voted against pharmacare? Why have they voted against $10-a-day child care? That does not make sense, because slogans do not make good policy.

    Mr. Speaker, everything she just listed are slogans on which the Liberals have not delivered. What they have delivered is that they have doubled the debt, which has caused the worst inflation in 40 years, interest rates rising faster than at any time in history, the doubling of housing costs, the worst growth in the G7 and the worst housing price inflation in that same group of nations. Today, after all of these devastatingly costly results, what do they do? The same thing that got us into this problem in the first place.

    Why will they not realize they are the problem and not the solution?

    Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has been masquerading across the country as a working-class hero, but it is fascinating to actually listen to what he thinks people do for a living. In a couple of recent speeches, he said he thinks electricians capture electricity from the sky and that welders weld with their bare hands. What is he going to tell me next, that the fishermen in my community dive beneath the ocean and catch fish with their bare teeth?

    I can forgive the opposition leader for being a career politician who has been on the public dime for a couple of decades, but if he wants to represent the interests of the working class, he should talk to a person who has a real job.

    Mr. Speaker, when it comes to housing, Quebeckers have been cheated by this government since 2019. We represent 22% of the population, yet have received only 14% of the funding and 6% of the affordable housing. Despite all this, the housing minister is giving lessons today. He told the press that, in his opinion, the government is acting in good faith and it is the provinces that should agree to do things differently. It is the federal government that needs to do things differently. It needs to stop shortchanging Quebeckers.

    Is the government going to give us our fair share in housing immediately instead of lecturing everyone and playing sorcerer's apprentice with our—

    The hon. Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities.

    Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the Bloc Québécois to define Quebec's housing policy. We have a good relationship with our counterparts in the province of Quebec to build housing. For example, we are investing to build 8,000 affordable housing units. Looking at the program as a whole, it is clear that we are making sure Quebec gets its fair share. We are continuing our work to build homes in Quebec and across the country.

    Mr. Speaker, they are lecturing us. It is unbelievable. This is the same government that has exacerbated the current housing crisis. It lost control of immigration and has not given Quebec money for housing. This is the same government that gave us ArriveCAN, that is incapable of printing passports, that is incapable of paying its own employees with Phoenix. We cannot make this stuff up. These geniuses are telling the provinces to act in good faith and do things differently.

    Does the government understand that the only thing that needs to be done differently is for these geniuses to mind their own business and give money to Quebec?

    Mr. Speaker, we are Quebeckers and we are minding our own business. When we talk about housing we are told that the little Quebec Liberals need to mind their own business. When we stand up in the House and talk about ensuring that no child goes to school on an empty stomach, we Liberals from Quebec are told to sit down and mind our own business. However, when a prime minister from a foreign country comes here from another continent, we are told we need to listen to him. People would do well to listen to us because the 35 members from Quebec stand up for Quebec and for Canada and we will continue to do so.

    Mr. Speaker, Canada's largest companies are making huge profits and yet they are among those that pay the least amount of taxes in the world. That was a big gift that the Conservatives gave them and that the Liberals keep on giving. In the United States, President Biden has realized that this is unfair to workers and he is going to make these companies pay what they owe. Here, the Liberals are reluctant. They are dragging their feet. They are beating around the bush. There is a real concern that they do not have the courage to do the right thing.

    Mr. Speaker, please tell me that I am mistaken about that.

    Mr. Speaker, he is mistaken. That is the simple answer.

    He seems to have a memory problem. We presented the biggest competition reform in the country with our NDP colleagues. Unfortunately, we know that the Conservatives were against it, but we moved forward anyway because we know that the best way to ensure price stability and affordability in Canada is to have more competition. More competition means more choice and better prices. That is why we are going to continue to fight every day to ensure that Canadians have a good quality of life.

    Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are struggling and food bank use is at an all-time high, rich oil and gas CEOs are making record profits. Canadians are frustrated.

     Sources say that the finance minister backed out from an excess profits tax in this budget. Why? It was because oil and gas lobbyists asked her to. Just as the Conservatives do, the Liberals keep caving to big oil and gas.

    Why do the Liberals keep protecting the profits of big oil and gas instead of everyday Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, we have introduced a tax on share buybacks across the economy to tackle exactly that: excess profits.

    I would point out that Canada is the first and only G20 country to have eliminated inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Canada is putting into place the world's first and only oil and gas emissions cap to hold the industry accountable for its own commitments.

    In contrast, the Conservative leader has pledged to his oil and gas CEO donors to make pollution free again. We know who is in the pockets of oil and gas. It is that party over there.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years under the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister, Canadians know that he is not worth the cost. Even proud Liberal and former Bank of Canada governor, David Dodge, who worked for Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, says that this budget is on track to be the worst one since 1982.

    Canadians know that this budget will bring higher taxes and higher spending, meaning even more misery for families that cannot afford to eat.

    Instead of drowning everyone, will the Liberals fix the budget, axe the tax on farmers and food, and stop the endless spending with a dollar-for-dollar law so that Canadians can afford to live?

    Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member is aware of this, but our fiscal markers are very strong. That is a AAA credit rating by an independent, objective observer. That is the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

    All the while, we will continue to support vulnerable Canadians, something they refuse to do on the other side of the House. They vote against $10-a-day child care, families and seniors every single time. The hypocrisy is palpable.

    Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the hon. member is aware of the pain Canadians feel when they cannot afford to live in Canada.

    What is worse is that they cannot even afford to die. The Prime Minister's own news agency, the CBC, is reporting that dead bodies are being stored in mobile freezers in provinces across Canada because people cannot afford the cost of laying their loved ones to rest.

    Canadians cannot afford their homes, they cannot afford their groceries, they cannot afford their gas, and now they cannot afford a dignified goodbye.

    We are asking the Prime Minister to just stop. We know he will not. How much inflationary fuel is the Prime Minister going to pour on the fire at four o'clock today?

    Mr. Speaker, all Canadians deserve to die with dignity. They also deserve supports while they are alive, which is why we have reduced poverty by 22% on this side of the House. It is why we have supported families with $10-a-day child care and the Canada child benefit, which has lifted 500,000 children out of poverty.

    What we will do on this side of the House is maintain a strong fiscal position while supporting Canadians, especially vulnerable Canadians. We take that as our priority, unlike the other side of the House.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years, we know that the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal government are not worth the cost.

    His recent spending spree is inflationary and makes everything worse, adding billions to the debt. This year alone, the Liberals will throw $52 billion towards debt servicing. That is more than is allocated to the provinces for health care.

    Does the Prime Minister not see that his reckless spending is increasing inflation and debt, burdening all generations of already struggling Canadians, or is he too busy cutting cheques to care?

    Mr. Speaker, let us delve into the numbers a bit. When the leader of the Conservatives was minister of jobs, unemployment in Canada was 11% higher, whereas wages in this country were 75% of what they are now. They had our foreign direct investment behind Ireland and Japan, and now we are third in the world. When we divide it by our population, we are first in the world on bringing good jobs, on bringing investments and on making Canada a place where everybody wants to call home, unlike the Conservatives, who are full of bluff and bluster.

    These are spendy ways, Mr. Speaker.

    David Dodge said that this was likely to be the worst budget since 1982. Who was prime minister then? How out of control was that budget? How broke did Canada and Canadians become before Pierre Elliott Trudeau finally took his walk in the snow?

    The more things change—

    With two million visits to food banks in a single month, is it not clear that Canadians are desperately hungry for change? How many more Canadians need to visit food banks before the Prime Minister realizes that today's budget is a recipe for disaster?

    Mr. Speaker, today sounds like a day for some of the greatest hits, so let us put the Conservatives in the spotlight.

    When we formed government in 2015, one of the first things we did was ask the wealthiest 1% of Canadians to pay more. How did the Conservatives vote? They voted against. When we asked to make sure that Canadians and their children could have money coming to their houses every month, how did the Conservatives vote? They voted against. Now that we are going to have a national school food program, housing across country and investments to grow this country, how are the Conservatives going to vote? They are going to vote against.

    Order.

    I am sure that all members would like to hear the question from the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

    Mr. Speaker, if we want to lower inflation and enable the Bank of Canada to reduce interest rates, we have limited options.

    We need to cap spending by applying the dollar-for-dollar rule. If we spend a dollar, we have to find a way to save a dollar. It is simple. That is how ordinary Canadians manage their household budgets. That is how every minister in this government should run their department.

    Will the Prime Minister cap spending in his upcoming budget to bring down inflation and interest rates?

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have always wanted to reduce taxes for the wealthiest Canadians and make life more difficult for everyone else, for the middle class and people with lower incomes. That is what they have always voted for.

    That includes voting against the Canada child benefit in 2016. That was one of the first things they voted on. It includes voting against dental care for the 600,000 seniors who have now successfully enrolled in the new Canada dental insurance plan. The Conservative leader makes himself scarce when people ask him about the Canadian government's dental care plan.

    Mr. Speaker, we are calling for three things today. It is not complicated.

    One of the three things the Conservative Party is calling for is to build homes, not bureaucracy. The government insists on announcing inflationary measures that are costing Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars and only serve to increase inflation and the cost of living. Even David Dodge, the former Liberal governor of the Bank of Canada, has predicted that this will be the worst budget since 1982.

    Will the Prime Minister commit to heeding the calls of the Leader of the Opposition and building homes, not bureaucracy?

    Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague is putting “homes” and “Leader of the Opposition” in the same sentence.

    What it means, when we put the two together, is six affordable housing units built across the country during the entire term when the Leader of the Opposition, who is also the leader of insults, was the housing minister.

    In my colleague's riding alone, looking at the Amarrage project as just one example, 12 affordable housing units have been built, along with many other projects, which is twice as many as the Conservative leader built across the country during his entire term.

    Mr. Speaker, the English Montreal School Board has decided to challenge Bill 21 before the Supreme Court. That is fine, that is its right.

    However, for the federal government to become directly involved in the case, against the will of the National Assembly, for it to provide money, our money, and lawyers, that is where we draw the line.

    The Quebec lieutenant said that Canada is secular, that the government supports secularism, but he keeps telling us that we must defend freedom of religion against Bill 21.

    When will the Liberals realize that the best way to protect religion is for the state to not have any?

    Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate something my colleague knows full well: Quebec is secular and Canada is secular. That is a fact. We are working with that.

    What I do no understand is that when we, as Quebeckers, want to speak to Quebec's issues, the Bloc Québécois tell us to mind our own business. The Bloc members tell us that every time. Now they are jumping for joy because a foreign leader came here to Canada and told them what to do. Someone comes from another continent and we have to listen to him.

    I will repeat this to my colleague with all due respect: We are 35 members from Quebec elected by Quebeckers; we are proud Quebeckers, and we will always stand up for Quebec.

    Mr. Speaker, there are 32 members from Quebec who support the will of Quebec's National Assembly. By supporting the challenge to Quebec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State, Ottawa is really challenging our model for living in harmony.

    Quebeckers want the separation of church and state. We have moved on. I am sure this is not easy to understand for members who fight to ensure that the House begins with a prayer every day. However, Quebeckers have chosen secularism. Religion is private and the state is public.

    I would like a straight answer from the minister. Why is his government opposed to secularism?

    Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. This is about a group of Quebeckers who went to court to defend their rights under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    If Quebec appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada, we will be there, as we have mentioned several times over the past year, to intervene and participate in these important discussions pertaining to the Canadian charter and the Quebec charter.

    Mr. Speaker, we are in a Parliament that sings God Save the King for the head of the Anglican Church, a Parliament where elected officials pray every day, not at home, which would be entirely within their rights, but here in the House.

    We have a government that wants to change the date of the election to accommodate Diwali, a religious holiday. Then, it tells us that Canada is in favour of secularism and that secularism is important. Come on.

    Will the minister admit that he wants to challenge Bill 21 simply because he is against secularism?

    Mr. Speaker, we are firmly committed to participating in these important national discussions that have a major impact on all Canadians, discussions about issues affecting our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

    As we have said many times, we have serious concerns about the pre-emptive usage of the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the charter. The first word should not be the last word in the dialogue between the legislative assemblies and the courts.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost, but let us hear from some rural residents. Judy from Arkona writes, “The carbon tax is killing us”, and Scott from Tupperville says, “As a senior, I am finding it hard to cope.” Walter from Alvinston writes, “I have not even received a carbon rebate.”

    In his broken-promise budget, set to be delivered at 4 p.m. today, will the Prime Minister finally axe the tax on farmers, make food cheaper for Canadians and pass Bill C-234 in its original form?

    Mr. Speaker, I would really like to say to the Conservatives that they do not have to wait until four o'clock. They can pass the fall economic statement, because that is impeding where rural top-ups are going. In my riding, that would mean $1,430 to go to a family of four every year. All the way across the country, in Alberta, it would mean $2,160. I wish they would pass the FES. Then they would truly be helping rural Canadians and rural families.

    Mr. Speaker, even the polls tell us that the majority of Canadians are fed up with the Prime Minister overspending, over-promising, under-delivering and failing this country. Over $52 billion will be spent on servicing his debt alone. While Canadians are struggling, he raised the price of gas, groceries and home heating, raising the carbon tax by 23% just two weeks ago. This is punishment, not progress.

    In his big-deficit budget later today, will the Prime Minister finally axe the tax on farmers and make food cheaper for Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to tell a story again that I told a few weeks ago. A constituent in my riding took the time to track every single amount of money that he had paid. Do members know what? He doubled it. In case he missed a few things, he was in $38 every time he got his cheque.

    I wish they would do their homework, because eight out of 10 Canadians get more with their Canada carbon rebate, especially in rural Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, this is coming from the Liberal member who said that if Canadians want programs, they should vote Liberal. Come on.

    After eight long years, the Liberal-NDP government is not worth the cost. Canadians are finding it harder to make ends meet. We all know that at four o'clock today the government is going to table a dumpster fire budget. The Prime Minister simply is not worth the cost.

    The question is this: Will he finally axe the tax on farmers so Canadians can put food on their tables?

    Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are focused on ensuring affordability for Canadians moving forward and addressing the climate issue. The price on pollution is an affordability mechanism. Eight out of 10 families get more money back. The PBO has underlined that. Three hundred economists across this country have underlined that.

    Every one of the Conservative MPs over there ran on a platform that included a price on pollution. That is the height of hypocrisy. Their only plan is to take money away from poor people and let the planet burn.

    Mr. Speaker, “climate Ken” can say whatever he wants, but we are 62nd out of 67 countries—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The hon. member, who is an experienced member of the House, understands that he cannot refer to other members other than by the titles they have, so I would ask him to start from the top and to avoid such language.

    The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. They see it time and again when they go to the grocery store. We know that our farmers are paying more. By 2030, when the carbon tax is fully implemented at $170 a tonne, farmers will be paying $1 billion in taxes.

    My question once again is this: At the government's four o'clock budget dumpster fire, will it axe the tax on farmers so Canadians can put food on the table?

    Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member is trying to insult me or give me a compliment, but I would say that it is important in this chamber that we use facts and are not misleading Canadians.

    Eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back. That is underlined by 300 economists in this country. To be honest, it is underlined by the premier of his province. When Scott Moe came here and testified, he said that they looked at the alternatives and they were all too expensive. It is absolutely the right thing, because we have put in place something that does address affordability and reduces carbon emissions.

    On that side of the House, Conservatives do not believe in climate change and they act—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

    Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I met with over 100 youth from Hamilton who told me they do not even know how they are going to be able to pay rent, let alone ever be able to afford to buy a home in their lifetimes. A recent Spectator news report confirms that Hamilton's rents are out of control and quickly outpacing Canadian cities.

    Under the Liberals' watch, life has only gotten better for wealthy developers. They are raking it in—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    I can usually hear the hon. member for Hamilton Centre quite well, but I am having difficulty hearing him today. I would ask all hon. members, in particular the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, to please only take the floor when recognized by the Speaker.

    I will give the hon. member 20 seconds to finish his question.

    The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

    Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals' watch, life has only gotten better for big money developers, and they are raking it in while rents double for Canadians.

    Why are the Liberals refusing to take on corporate developers and failing to build non-market affordable housing now?

    Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member and thank him for his advocacy on building more homes in Hamilton, but he may not be aware that we recently invested $93.5 million in his city to help speed up the construction of up to 9,000 new homes. In addition, we are putting money on the table that is going to help speed up the development.

     If the member's concern is about building non-market housing, I am pleased to point to the billion dollars we invested, in the fall economic statement, to build more affordable housing, the hundreds of millions we are using to build more co-operative housing and the $4 billion we are using to deal with the needs of urban, rural and northern communities to serve indigenous peoples. We are going to build housing for the most vulnerable. We are going to build housing for everyone.

    Mr. Speaker, indigenous people in Winnipeg make up nearly 75% of the unhoused population. Almost 90% are sleeping outdoors or living in encampments. The Liberals' inadequate response is costing lives, and the Conservative leader cut 8,000 affordable units when he was the minister in charge. It is clearly not a Conservative priority.

    In today's budget, will the Liberals commit to increasing funding for affordable housing, with rent geared to income, and get serious about ending homelessness?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her concern. She is right to point out the desperate need of so many communities across the country when it comes to building more affordable housing. She is right to point out the need for increased investment to support the needs of indigenous people who remain unhoused. That is why we put more than $4 billion on the table to support the needs of indigenous peoples in communities and an additional $4.3 billion to deal with the needs of indigenous peoples who live in urban, rural and northern environments. On top of that, we have invested more than $120 million to build thousands of homes in the member's city. We are going to keep doing what we need to do to build more affordable housing.

    I have one point of correction: It was 800,000 units that the opposition leader lost while he was housing minister.

    Mr. Speaker, today, the Deputy Prime Minister will deliver the budget. Over the last few weeks, we have seen the important efforts of this government to invest in this country, building a record we can be proud of. On the other side, the Leader of the Opposition loves to talk about his record when he was minister of employment. He wants to convince Canadians that he has the solution to make life better: cut, cut, cut. Well, cuts do not create jobs. Cuts do not create investment. Cuts do not increase wages.

    Can the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages tell the House what the government is going to do to make life better for Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells for his hard work. Since we took office in 2015, wages are up, employment is up and foreign direct investment is up. We are investing in Canadians and in the economy, creating great jobs and growth for the whole country.

     When the Leader of the Opposition was minister of employment, wages were lower, employment was lower and foreign investment was lower. While we are fighting for fairness for every generation, his record is clear. There is one thing I will bring up. If he ever takes over, there will be cuts, cuts and more cuts.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years, it is clear the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there are 28 bodies in a freezer outside of a hospital because their families cannot afford to bury them. This sounds like a Netflix horror movie, but sadly it is the nightmare of the Prime Minister's out-of-control spending. Conservatives demand that he stop the outrageous spending and make life affordable.

    Will the Liberals listen and give Canadians the ability to bury their loved ones?

    Mr. Speaker, we know it is a challenging time for many people. That is why we have been there all along. We have been there with the child care benefit. We have been there with the increased OAS and GIS. We are now there with a dental program that is rolling out to help people. We have our carbon rebate this year for people. We know it is challenging times. We will be there for Canadians and we always will be.

    Mr. Speaker, like the old song, it is “Stop! In the Name of Canadians”. There are 28 bodies in a freezer because families cannot afford to bury their loved ones. Houses have doubled. Food bank usage is higher. Families are losing their homes. It is enough. Today, the Liberals are announcing their budget.

    Will they show some compassion and ensure there is a dollar of savings for every dollar of spending, so Canadians can afford to live?

    Before the hon. minister gets up, I want to tell members that I hear some singing in the House. Members know that singing is not permitted in the House. I will just ask whoever is doing that to please stop.

    The hon. Minister for Rural Economic Development.

    Mr. Speaker, when people find themselves in a very challenging or upsetting time in their lives, they know that this party, on this side of the House, is there to help them in many ways.

    We do not believe in slogans. We believe in helping people, which we have been doing since the very beginning. We will continue to help, especially with the budget later today.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years, this Liberal government is not worth the cost. After eight years of astronomical deficits and spiralling debt, this government has never managed to control spending. This is a perfect recipe for inflation.

    Canadians know what inflation is. Rents have doubled. Mortgages have doubled. Things have reached a point where it is cheaper to stay in a motel than have an apartment.

    At the very least, will there be a plan, if only to control spending, later on when the budget is tabled?

    Mr. Speaker, when the Conservative leader was the minister responsible for housing, he built six affordable housing units across the entire country during his entire term.

    Municipalities in Quebec are building 8,000 housing units with the help of the Canadian government. If we divide the 8,000 housing units by six, it amounts to about 1,200 times more. Nevertheless, the Conservative leader insults Quebec's municipalities by calling them incompetent.

    Who is incompetent, the Conservative leader with six units or Quebec municipalities with 8,000 units?

    Mr. Speaker, the member for Québec seems to enjoy playing with numbers these days. I have a number for him: 750. The ArriveCAN app cost 750 times more than it should have. Who was the President of the Treasury Board was when that happened? It was the current member for Québec. What happened to him after that? He became the health minister. What is he now? He is the Minister of Public Services and Procurement. He has won the triple crown of mismanagement.

    Does he find it insulting to have spent 750 times more on the app, when it was his responsibility to make sure it was done properly?

    Mr. Speaker, “insulting” is indeed the key word. Quebec municipalities were insulted by being called incompetent.

    They are creating 8,000 affordable housing units with the support of the Canadian government and the co-operation of the Quebec government, while the Conservative leader, the leader of insults, built just six affordable housing units across the country during his entire mandate as the minister responsible for housing. Some 66 units have been built in the past few weeks just in the riding of my colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

    Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is brewing a new fiasco at the border. On May 13, importers might hit a wall at customs. Why? Because that is when CARM, the new application for assessing and paying duties and taxes is officially implemented at the border.

    Last week, 22 organizations raised concerns saying that neither the Canada Border Services Agency nor businesses will be ready on time.

    Will Ottawa push back the implementation date until the Standing Committee on International Trade completes its study and makes recommendations?

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that we always want to work with the parliamentary committees. I had a discussion with the president of the CBSA yesterday about the issue raised by my colleague. I am sure that the CBSA is aware of the facts of this application. I am sure that it will be managed properly.

    Mr. Speaker, Ottawa set a precedent for failure in terms of implementing major new IT systems. One such precedent is called Phoenix. Eight years later, Ottawa still cannot pay its employees.

    There is also a precedent with the Canada Border Services Agency. It is called ArriveCAN. How reassuring. It fills us with confidence. The CBSA has failed to provide the documents concerning CARM, as requested by the committee. The committee cannot complete its study, and no one seems to know exactly what to do if the application crashes on May 13.

    Is Ottawa going to do the only thing there is to do, which is postpone the rollout?

    Mr. Speaker, once again, we have consulted exporters and importers, and we will continue to do so. We fully understand their concerns, and that is why I raised this issue with the president of the CBSA. I do not share my Bloc Québécois colleague's pessimism. As my colleague, the Quebec lieutenant, often says, they are experts in pessimism. I do not share that pessimism, but I understand the importance of doing things the right way.