Health Committee on May 27th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Julian, go ahead, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I note that Conservatives have squandered our time today. We have been here for over four hours now, voting on three amendments. I really regret that. This is one of the most important bills ever to come before the health committee, certainly since universal health care was adopted in the 1960s because of Tommy Douglas and the work of the NDP in a minority Parliament. I am very saddened that Conservatives have squandered four hours of committee time, at the cost of thousands of dollars, to consider three amendments that don't seem to have been made in good faith, either.

If we're talking about patient safety, I'm almost tempted to ask our witnesses about the number of Canadians who die every year because they can't afford to pay for the medication their doctors prescribe. It would be a rhetorical question. The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions and Linda Silas already spoke on that. Six hundred Canadians die every single year because they can't afford to pay for their medication. Their doctors, in good faith, prescribe the medication. The patient leaves the doctor's office and can't afford to pay for it. Every two days, on average, we lose three Canadians because of that.

The pharmacare bill meets, at least to start—as a first phase—that important need. When it comes to diabetes medication, it will save a couple of hundred lives every year. As it moves in phase two to heart medication and other types of medication, we'll talk about many more lives being saved.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I would call on my Conservative colleagues to stop blocking the legislation, stop filibustering tonight and stop raising points that can be readily answered just by reading the legislation and by understanding the dynamic that kills 600 Canadians a year because we don't have universal pharmacare in place. That's why it's so important to get through this legislation tonight.

Fortunately, the House of Commons had the presence of mind to think ahead. They thought the Conservatives would filibuster, as they have. That's why we will be able to complete the clause-by-clause consideration tonight. It's because of the House of Commons voting to say, to this committee, “You have to keep sitting until all the amendments are passed.” I would have preferred that the Conservatives allowed debate on the amendments, rather than filibustering each one. That would have allowed us to move through. We would be in the process of looking at the final few amendments at this point. That's not what happened tonight, and I regret that.

This is too important for Conservatives to filibuster and block. I know the member for Carleton hates the idea that Canadians will be helped, but they will be helped because I think a majority of members around this committee table believe profoundly in stopping that horrible death rate of 600 Canadians a year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Dr. Ellis is next.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thanks very much, Chair.

It's interesting. Through you, Chair, I would never, ever suppose to know what is inside Mr. Julian's head. It fascinates me to no end that he would suppose to know what the member for Carleton thinks—that he doesn't think pharmacare should exist or 600 people a year should die or anything like that. That's utter nonsense.

If you want to talk about the numbers of people dying, I mentioned people not being able to access the system for which this NDP-Liberal coalition government promised 7,500 doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners. We all know that's the purview of the provincial governments, but they promised it nonetheless. There were 17,000 to 30,000 people—because not all provinces and territories reported the deaths—who died every year because they couldn't access practitioners and/or services.

We have a system that is on the brink of collapse, and Canadians should appropriately question whether to trust the NDP-Liberal coalition to create another system. It is quite fascinating to me to suggest that we need this national system simply to protect the NDP-Liberal costly coalition.

Everybody in Canada knows that is the only reason this piece of legislation has reached the floor of the House of Commons. Everybody in Canada knows that the coalition is what has caused pharmacare to come to the floor of the House of Commons. Mr. Julian might say this is his greatest crowning achievement and the most important thing since Tommy Douglas created medicare and all those things, but what we know is that Canadians want a functioning health care system first and foremost. That's the counter to his argument.

Conservatives, on behalf of Canadians, are mounting a specific and robust opposition to what the costly coalition has provided Canadians over the last nine years—a doubling of rent, a doubling of mortgages, the fastest interest rate increases in 40 years and the greatest amount added to Canada's debt in the entire history of the country—and to say we should entrust them with very specific and other far-reaching bills is, in my mind, hogwash.

Going back to talking about the autonomy of physicians, on behalf of Canadians, through you, Chair; I don't want to say something disparaging, but I wish I could share Dr. Powlowski's and Dr. Hanley's ability to forgo a rigorous scientific examination of what the government has done already in the past and say we should simply trust them. Of course, they're part of the government. They're part of the costly coalition. It doesn't matter how much I like them; they're still a part of it.

If you want to be, in French, a béni-oui-oui and suggest that everything is good and shake your head yes, you can continue to do that. That is the prerogative of members of Parliament, but when we know.... If there's no nefarious purpose, why would this particular paragraph, under “Principles”, suggest that “The Minister is to consider the following principles”, and this is what they can do? This is the power that the minister has specifically asked to be outlined in this bill.

Of course, we have a system that's not perfect. I understand that. Do mistakes happen? Yes. I've already admitted that they happen. There are times when things are not appropriate. However, that being said, having a government agency interfere with the self-governing autonomy of, for instance, physicians in this country.... Who would want to practise medicine here?

Think, “Don't worry. You can trust the government.” What's the Ronald Reagan saying? He said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.” I just don't buy that.

People who really want their freedom and the ability to practise in the manner in which they have been trained, in which they continue to have their continuing medical education updated on a regular basis, for them to have that curtailed, perhaps.... I'm sure Mr. Julian is down there saying: “Oh, this is a tinfoil hat idea, of course; why would the government want to do that?”

Well, why would you put it in here? If you're not going to give the minister that type of power, then why would you do that? That would be.... Any self-regulated profession that would agree to that.... To me, this is the writing on the wall to say, “Guess what? You don't have the ability to regulate yourselves and therefore you should just trust the government to look after you. Don't worry yourself over that. The government will be more than happy to take care of your every want and need.” This is exactly what we hear from this NDP-Liberal costly coalition every single day, who say, “Don't worry. We're going to build more houses. We'll just invest some money.” What happens? They build fewer houses.

This is the classic for me: Don't worry, because in their platform in 2021, the costly coalition said they were going to invest $4.5 billion in the Canada mental health transfer. How is that going for you? How many dollars have been invested in mental health through the Canada mental health transfer? It's a very simple answer, because the answer is zero. It's zero. They are very good at making lots of announcements and taking lots of pictures and saying, “Look at what we are going to do for you.” You know what they end up doing? Making things worse. It's worse than nothing; it's making things worse. How can they possibly know that there's a housing crisis, which again is not the responsibility of the federal government, and then go on and say they're going to spend billions of dollars and build more houses, and then build less? It's nonsensical. It's beyond belief.

Our colleague from the NDP, part of the costly coalition, suggests that this is a filibuster. This is a serious and significant defence of Canadian principles that somebody has to save. Mr. Julian would simply love for us just to go on and say, “Just pass it. Just go ahead. No problem. We don't need any debate. We don't need any witnesses. The costly coalition knows best.” Again, that overriding and overarching principle is exactly what underscores my fear around this proposed paragraph 4(c) in suggesting that the autonomy for Canada's frontline health care providers is going to be interfered with by a federal government, which I think is the absolute travesty.

It's interesting. My colleagues talked about patients, that this is going to be about the primacy of patients. There's nothing in here. It does mention the “well-being of Canadians”, but it doesn't mention that there's going to be a patient ombudsperson. It doesn't mention that patients being part of the decision-making is in there. There's none of that wording, which we also heard significant testimony about, suggesting that there should be an ombud related to patient affairs and that patients should be part of the decision-making in going forward.

Not only did this bill not use Canada's two leading experts in pharmacare, both of whom had the ability to testify but were not asked to have input on the bill before it was created; they didn't ask any patients to be a part of it either. That cry has been going out for a very long time. There's no mention here of a patient ombud to allow patients to be part of that decision-making.

Do I trust this government? No. Do I have a distrust of most governments? Not in the sense that I don't believe that they have some good things in their mind or good intentions, but do I trust in their ability to act on them and make them reality? The answer there, of course, is a resounding no, because we see that through the examples that I've been able to provide here.

For that reason, I would implore my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf Canada's excellent and highly trained health care practitioners who exist in the system now.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The speakers list is now exhausted.

Are there any further interventions with respect to CPC-12?

Mr. Doherty, you have the floor.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to have the floor after having to sit for almost four hours, listening to our NDP colleague filibuster every one of the CPC amendments. He likes to point fingers, and say the CPC are filibustering, but in reality we're the only party that put forth any amendments to this bill.

I will challenge Canadians that whenever a bill comes forward, it is the opposition's job to review pieces of legislation. As the government always says, “Let's not let perfection get in the way of progress.” It says, “Just trust us. Let's get it to committee, and we will work with all parties to make this bill better.”

The Conservatives rolled up their sleeves. If Canadians have been listening in for the last four hours, they will see that we have put forth some common-sense amendments, non-partisan amendments, that would make this bill clearer and more concise and would tell Canadians all about Bill C-64.

Unfortunately, after every discussion regarding the CPC amendments, our colleague from the NDP wants to filibuster. He goes on and on and on, and blames filibustering for four hours on Conservatives. I would assume... Well, pardon me; I won't say “assume”. You never want to assume anything. However, I would bet, Mr. Chair, that our colleague from the NDP will probably raise his hand and want to filibuster my intervention for the remaining minutes of this committee meeting.

What's sad is that the NDP had an opportunity, with its coalition, to really make something that would be beneficial for so many Canadians. Instead, it bowed down to its Liberal colleagues in the coalition. It's desperate to try and keep the Prime Minister in power, instead of fighting for Canadians and a true pharmacare program.

Mr. Julian spoke about his constituent who had cardiac issues. I spoke about my former constituents who succumbed to a terrible disease, ALS. There are millions of Canadians struggling because of the lack of access to a pharmacare program or affordable drugs. The NDP did not fight for a true pharmacare program; it settled on contraception and diabetes. Ultimately, we are left with a two-bill drug that really doesn't include any other Canadians who—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

You mean a two-drug bill.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'm sorry; it's a two-drug bill. Thank you.

You see, he is listening, so that's good. Thank you, Mr. Julian, for that.

He's taking notes because he's going to filibuster the rest of the remaining minutes. Trust me. I'd be surprised if he didn't. He's laughing down the way.

Mr. Chair, it's been hard sitting here for me and my colleagues, listening to him going on for... It would be four hours at this point right now, and no doubt he'll go on for four hours and more after I'm done.

Mr. Chair, all Conservatives wanted to do with the 43 amendments that we worked tirelessly on in good faith, along with the witnesses who were unable to come to this committee and were not allowed to be heard, was to put forth amendments that would make this legislation better and truly represent the intent of this piece of legislation.

We heard testimony from constituents, all along the way, talking about the concerns that they have. We heard testimony from insurers, who have some very real concerns as to what's going to happen with the existing plans and coverage that so many Canadians have. What will be covered in this pharmacare?

We heard, during Mr. Julian's filibuster earlier, that this is just phase one and that phase two is coming—“Just wait, the cheque's in the mail”—so Canadians will have to wait yet a bit longer for that. It remains to be seen what that will be: Perhaps at that time it will be those drugs for cardiac patients, or maybe a rare disease strategy or access to those medications that so many Canadians are unable to receive or afford and for which they have to go to other jurisdictions to get coverage and treatment.

I mentioned earlier that we have three physicians on this committee, whom I deeply respect in terms of their points of view—well, we heard some from Mr. Hanley; Dr. Powlowski is not speaking up tonight. I appreciate his voice of reason, at times. Today he's, sadly, a little quiet.

Mr. Chair, I see that it is about five minutes after eight or thereabouts. I will cede the floor to my colleague from the NDP. I don't know whether I saw his hand come up or not.

Mr. Julian would like to filibuster the remaining 27 minutes. He's not making eye contact with me, but I know that he's probably cooking something up right now with his coalition partners, so with that, I'll cede the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That exhausts the speakers list.

Are we ready for the question?

[An hon. member]

Can I have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

A recorded division has been requested on CPC-12.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

That brings us to CPC-13, in the name of Dr. Ellis.

Would you like to move CPC-13, Dr. Ellis?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

With pleasure, Mr. Chair.

Here, once again, what we see is the original clause stating, “provide universal coverage of pharmaceutical products across Canada”. It's an aspirational goal; it's just not the truth. I think we've heard this resounding over and over and over again, and the reasoned argument that we have presented is that in Bill C-64, clause 4 will be amended by replacing line 30 on page 3 with the following “(d) make progress on providing universal coverage of pharmaceutical” products across Canada.

You know, Chair, I think it important again that this is about having Canadians understand that transparency and sunny ways are something that, at the current time, very sadly for Canadians, do not exist with this NDP-Liberal coalition government. What we are seeing is a lack of transparency.

They are spending money at the risk of insulting drunken sailors. To say that they are spending money “on behalf of Canadians” is in line with the problems that they have already created. We've heard the number of people who are living in food insecurity because of the spending of this NDP-Liberal costly coalition. Then what do they say? The statistic is that 26% of Canadians are going without food. Those are mostly parents who are going without food so that their children can eat. They're skipping meals, going to food banks, etc. They have food insecurity so that their children can eat.

What do we see now? We see that the government that created this problem is going to swoop in and save Canadian children by creating a national school food program. Well, let's be honest. If they hadn't created the problem in the first place, such that Canadians couldn't afford to feed themselves, they wouldn't have to create a national school food program.

This is like if I have a prosthetic business and I remove one of Mr. Doherty's legs, and then I sell him a prosthesis. It's not a funny analogy. It's something that's shared between Mr. Doherty and me. I apologize for being rather graphic, but it just makes no sense. It's like I rammed into his car when I have a car business, and I sell him a new one. I mean, I am creating a problem for him and then selling him the solution. Canadians who are no longer ready to be fleeced by the costly coalition know what lies at the heart of the spending addiction that this government has.

The cost of mortgages has doubled. The cost of rent has doubled. The number of homeless encampments is beyond imagination.

You know, it's always interesting to be in the House of Commons and listen to question period without answer. Folks ask, “Well, back when Pierre Poilievre was the minister of housing, how many houses did he build?” He didn't have to build houses, because there wasn't a housing crisis. The federal government didn't have to step in or didn't have to try to step in, as they have tried to do now, and they have failed miserably by building fewer houses and spending more money. The economy of the country worked in the way that it was imagined to work, such that people who are house builders were building houses. Permits were granted by municipal governments, and Canadians had money in their pockets that allowed them to afford to pay their mortgage. Interest rates were not out of control, while now they are rising the most rapidly that they have in the last 40 years.

In the economic situation that has been created by this costly coalition, they have the audacity to say that they will step in and solve your problem, even though it's a problem that they have created.

You can't afford your medications. What we heard some of the testimony talking about was that Canadians are choosing between eating and paying for their medications. Well, if the cost of food wasn't so high, then they could pay for their medications. If the leader of the NDP's brother were not a lobbyist for Metro, then maybe the cost of food would be less.

If we didn't have a carbon tax, the dreaded tax on everything.... I know that Canadians have heard this before, but it bears repeating. If you tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, then the people, like all of us who buy the food, are going to have to pay more.

As we see that cascading effect, then we know that is where the problem lies. It's the spending addiction. It's the $10-a-day day care program, again, that can't be delivered. We know there are not spots out there for Canadian working families in which both people have to work because of the costly coalition and the cost of everything. They are unable to find a day care spot for $10 a day.

Again, they have the.... I can't even explain it. They have the anti-Midas touch. It's not that things turn to gold; it's that things turn to something else in a very different colour when they touch them, which again doesn't allow people to have appropriate access to the things they need in this country.

Allowing the costly coalition to create another costly program for two medications, two conditions, in this country would be a significant jeopardy. To go on and again suggest that this is more than what it is, which is what line 30 is suggesting with “providing universal coverage of pharmaceutical” products.... This is not doing any such thing.

I know that every other time we have brought this up, pointing out that all of the testimony was directed exactly towards contraceptive pills and devices and diabetic medications and devices, this costly coalition today has voted it down, because they do not want Canadians to know that what they are attempting to create here is very limited in scope and does not fulfill the needs of all Canadians.

Further to that—I'll say it again—this does not mean that Conservatives are against medications or against contraceptives or against the good health of Canadians. That is not what this means. What it means is that the way they are going about it, without transparency, without accountability and with the background of spending money foolishly on things like consultants.... We're seeing hundreds of millions of dollars being spent there that could be spent elsewhere. I clearly outlined previously the money that was wasted on the Medicago fiasco—half a billion dollars—and now we have the Novavax fiasco at another $130 million, with a recurring cost of $17 million to Canadians without anything at all to show for it—nothing.

It's not their money they're spending. It's our money. This is our money. What we're asking for is accountability and transparency, and we're telling the truth and pointing out that what is happening is not the way they're portraying it. This is about contraceptives and diabetes medications. That's what this is about. This is not a universal pharmacare program in which it doesn't matter where you go. You probably won't even have to show a card, if everything's free. You just have to have your prescription—boom, everything is free.

Nothing is free. There's no such thing as a free lunch. This is coming out of the pockets of every Canadian. With the amount of debt and the debt servicing costs that are happening now in this country, the debt servicing costs are more than $1 billion, with a “b”, every single week—every week—which, sadly, we know is more than the Canada health transfer. It is more than that because this Prime Minister of the costly coalition believed that interest rates would never go up. Of course, there's the infamous quote that budgets balance themselves.

We know that this costly coalition continues to have an ongoing deficit spending position, which was never the expectation of any government in the history of the free world. That's not their expectation.

Folks out there listening, think of it from your own perspective: If you're making $500 per week and you're spending $600 per week every single week, then it becomes very difficult—

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I have a point of order.

I kind of fail to see the relevance of the top-of-the-charts best slogans and talking points of my CPC colleagues across the way that are being recited at this moment with regard to CPC-13, so I'm sure, Mr. Chair, that you'll remind Mr. Ellis to find some sort of relevance to the amendment that has been presented as he goes on and on about things that.... It's their usual talking points.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

As I follow the argument, the amendment is about providing universal coverage of pharmaceuticals, which is an expenditure. He's talking about expenditures, so I don't—

[Naqvi]

Everything has expenditure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

—see it as being far from the amendment at all, with respect, Mr. Naqvi.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There's a very old saying, Mr. Chair, that the truth hurts. When we understand on behalf of Canadians that the costly coalition wishes to spend more money than it takes in, then we also know that there are going to be ways in which it is going to raise taxes.

The carbon tax is the biggest tax grab. We hear now that as relevant as it is to this particular bill, they want to increase capital gains on professionals, including physicians, people we lack in this country. Some estimates would suggest that we are short approximately 30,000 family doctors in this country. Then when you begin to do the math and look at the capital gains tax increase that they wish to do, it's a 6% tax grab.

The audacity is that.... People say 6% is not that much, but it is, considering that physicians who are either retired or are close to retirement will have to pay it out of the savings that they have calculated that they would need to fund their own retirement. As we begin to consider that and as we hear the statements now coming out of the Canadian Medical Association to suggest that the fiscal practices and policies of this government are incredibly inappropriate and short-sighted, then yes, the truth can be hurtful to the costly coalition in understanding that this year they will run another deficit of approximately $60 billion in perpetuity. We don't see an end to this.

Look at the debt clock for Canadians—you can look that up on the Internet if you want—to understand on behalf of every single person in Canada how much is owed, on behalf of yourselves, because of allowing the costly coalition free rein and the ability to decide how to spend money in a manner that is not responsible.

Whether my colleague opposite wishes to hear these points repeated or not, do you know what? I think that if you hear them over and over again, then maybe at some point they'll sink in. Then the next time that he's sitting around with his caucus mates, maybe he'll say, “Wow. Hey, wait a second. Maybe we shouldn't spend $2 billion more.” A billion here or a billion there is not much money to think about, but I hope that maybe he will hear my voice resonating in his head, saying that he probably shouldn't vote for spending this money. However, I don't hold out a whole lot of hope for that, Mr. Chair.

The point of CPC-13 is really related, again, to providing clarity to Canadians that this is about progress on providing universal coverage of pharmaceutical products; this is not a pharmacare bill. It is a pharmacare pamphlet of four pages.

Once again, as we heard through testimony from multiple witnesses.... I also would suggest that what we are seeing here is that the costly coalition wants to disregard or disrepute the testimony of many of the witnesses we heard that this is purely about contraceptives and diabetes. That is what this is about. It's not about other medications. There's no other mention. There's no other witness testimony related to it. That is not to mention the fact that there was really no witness testimony related to an expert helping to create this bill, which is why it's such a disaster.

At that point, Mr. Chair, I'm happy to cede the floor and hear what others may have to say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Sidhu, please go ahead.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I want to remind colleagues about the testimony of a patient, Mr. Bleskie, last week. He told us that universal coverage that includes diabetes medication would be simply life-saving. No one can deny that. We have three doctors on this committee, and no one denies that untreated diabetes costs millions of dollars and causes serious consequences.

With that said, Mr. Chair, I want to make a comment on this amendment. This provision talks about the principles in addition to the Canada Health Act. The first three principles refer to “accessibility”, “affordability” and “the appropriate use of pharmaceutical products”. These are the goals and the principles, not descriptions. Removing the word “provide” would weaken the principles, so, Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Julian, please go ahead.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are coming up to four and three quarter hours for three amendments in the Conservative filibuster. I do need to respond to the “drunken sailors” component, because to compare Conservative governments to drunken sailors does a disservice to drunken sailors.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

I have a point of order, Chair.

If you check the record, that's exactly what I already said, so that is not that funny.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian. I didn't hear a point of order there.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

The Conservatives, when they were in power, put in place the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, which the PBO tells us cost over $30 billion each and every year. I think, Mr. Chair, you and I would probably agree that the Liberals should have ended those practices, but they've kept them, which has led to a tremendous fiscal problem that is still unresolved.

However, the Conservatives, when they were in power, gave $116 billion in liquidity support to Canada's big banks. They doled out billions of dollars every year to oil and gas CEOs, and that amount, over that dismal decade of the Harper government, was about $100 billion. In short, Conservatives themselves are responsible for about half the structural deficit that we have in our country, so when Conservatives talk about fiscal management, there's only one way to put it: Conservative fiscal management is an oxymoron. They are absolutely terrible at managing money. They throw money at lobbyists and at corporate CEOs, but they don't throw money at people, and this is why I'm opposing CPC-13.

What are they proposing here? They're proposing to move from what is very clearly stated in the bill, which is the purpose and the principle of providing universal coverage of pharmaceutical products across Canada. Instead, they want to put in the weasel words “make progress on providing universal coverage of pharmaceutical” products.

They have no hesitation about massive subsidies to the corporate sector and corporate lobbyists, but when it comes to people who are struggling, like my constituent Amber, who is paying $1,000 every month for her diabetes medication, Conservatives say, “Whoa. No, we can't afford that. We can't afford the things that actually benefit people.”

This is a ridiculous amendment and it shouldn't have been tabled, but I understand the Conservatives just want to block this bill. Fortunately, with the House motion, within the next half-hour we will actually move to consider these amendments that Conservatives have been blocking for the last five hours and we'll be able to get this bill through this committee.

I find it passing strange that the Conservatives don't even understand their own lamentable history when it comes to managing money and paying down debt. If they want to inform themselves, I would suggest, through you, Mr. Chair, to the Conservative members of the committee that the fiscal period returns issued annually by the ministry of finance actually show which governments are best at managing money and paying down debt. Every single year over the last 40 years, NDP governments at the provincial level have been the best. If you look at the fiscal period returns, you'll see that compared to Conservative governments and Liberal governments, the NDP is best at managing money.

There's a simple reason, Chair, and it is that NDP governments put people first. We would put pharmacare before massive bailouts to the banks. We would put in place dental care rather than the splurging on oil and gas CEOs that we saw under the Conservatives. Rather than putting in place a structural deficit of $30 billion a year through the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, we believe that money actually needs to go to people to make sure they have an adequate income, affordable housing and all those things that most Canadians agree should be the priorities of any government.

I take absolutely no lessons from the Conservatives. They are horrible at managing money, and their track record shows it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Doherty, go ahead, please.