Debates of Nov. 15th, 2022

Health

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important to Canadians than the health of our kids, but right now children are being admitted to ERs because of a lack of pediatric medicines. Today, experts told the health committee that severe drug shortages are a long-standing problem in Canada with hundreds of medicines in dangerously low supply every year. This must change. New Democrats have long called for the Canadian government to create a public drug manufacturer to supply the medications people need and our kids need.

Will the Liberals finally act to produce life-saving medications here in Canada?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, we share the concerns of my colleague from the NDP, of parents and caregivers about their inability to find infant and children's acetaminophen and ibuprofen. This has been a really tough cold and flu season for parents across this country and we acknowledge that.

Therefore, we secured an additional foreign supply of children's acetaminophen, which will be available for sale at retail and community pharmacies in the coming weeks, to help address this immediate situation. Our littlest neighbours and constituents are our top concern. I agree with my colleague from the NDP that a domestic solution is one that would last a lot longer.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the government is making the littlest effort. This was a good question about establishing a public drug manufacturer in Canada. We just came through a pandemic where we saw the government scramble to secure a vaccine supply and only succeed at the expense of people in the global south, who never did get the vaccines that they needed.

Now we are witnessing a shortage of children's medicine. We are seeing Amazon charge over $200 for four ounces of Tylenol on the Internet. There is something wrong with a system that allows that and does not allow the government to push back, which it could do with a public drug manufacturer to produce essential medications when the market fails.

When are the Liberals going to start the work?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that my colleague was absent for a couple of months. There is nothing more important than ensuring the health and safety of Canadians. That is why we acted. We brought Moderna to Canada to produce vaccines. It was not for COVID-19 but for about 30 families of vaccines that Canadians would need, including for cancer. We have Sanofi investing in Toronto. We invested in Biovectra.

One thing we understand on this side of the aisle is that we did not choose the pandemic and we do not know if there is going to be another one, but we choose to be better prepared. That is what Canadians expect from us.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid that is all the time we have for question period today.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent on a point of order.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the COP27 document entitled “Climate Change Performance Index”, which states that, after seven years of Liberal governance, Canada's ranks 58th out of 63 countries for its climate change performance.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations and I believe, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion that, given that, first, the mental health of Canadians has been negatively impacted by the COVID–19 pandemic; second, the toxic drug crisis has worsened during the COVID–19 pandemic and continues to have a tragic impact on communities; third, too many Canadians are unable to access mental health or substance use supports in a timely manner and economic conditions are exacerbating financial barriers; and fourth, lack of timely access to community-based mental health and substance use services is adding to the immense strain facing our hospitals and primary care providers; the House call on the government to take the necessary steps to bring a comprehensive range of mental health and substance use services beyond physician and hospital settings into our universal public health care system.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

[An hon. member]

Nay.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable for questions and comments.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 22, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are being treated to an eloquent demonstration by the Liberal government, which, with the NDP coalition, has chosen to limit the ability of members from across the country to speak freely on issues that interest them. Not only are they trying to get a motion passed in the House, with the support of the NDP, that will give the Liberals even greater control over how the House works, but now they want to avoid debating the motion. This is totally inappropriate and unacceptable.

I wonder why the Liberals, who for months have been touting transparency, openness and consensus, are once again limiting debate in the House today, with the tacit support of the NDP. That is the reality. The Conservatives want to collaborate and contribute, while the Liberals want to impose their will. Why is that?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this seems so strange to me, because this motion is about extending the time for debate. The member opposite says that the government's objective is to prevent the opposition from speaking. Maybe the opposition member has not had a chance to read the text, because it actually provides the opportunity to speak more.

The problem here is the Conservative Party's obstructionist tactics, which it continues to use to block other parties from passing legislation at this critical time.

As for speaking freely, if there are more hours to speak, there are more opportunities for members on the other side to explain their position and have more debate.

That is why the member's question seems very strange to me.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear from the party across the way.

A recent meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, of which I am a member, was cancelled due to a lack of resources. That is the impact of the hybrid Parliament. That is the impact of extending sitting hours. This committee is unable to meet to deal with major issues that have consequences for women and girls.

As a mother, I am sincerely asking my colleagues if that is the message they want to be sending. I do not want to hear a single person across the way tell me that I am lazy. I was able to work. That is not the issue.

Can we send a message to women that having debates until midnight does not make sense? If we want Parliament to be more representative and more diverse, then we need to use a bit more common sense. We can debate during the day. There is no need to schedule debates until midnight until the end of the session.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's question covers two issues.

First, there is the issue of committees. That is the reason we can talk about the legislative agenda for Parliament and also for the committees. I am very aware of that. The 31 committees study some very important issues. There is also the legislative agenda here in Parliament, and it is vital that we have time for both.

Concerning the situation for mothers, I hope that the member opposite will support the hybrid system because it is a good solution, not just for mothers, but for anyone.

There are solutions. We must continue to talk.

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

Madam Speaker, it is hard to imagine any member of Parliament objecting to working longer hours, particularly when we look at what Canadians are facing right now.

Canadians are struggling to put food on their tables and to keep a roof over their heads. We have an obligation as parliamentarians to work longer hours and to work harder to make sure that Canadians are supported.

I want to ask my colleague, the government House leader, what the real reason may be for the Conservative objection. Looking back two years ago, the Globe and Mail reported that Conservatives held the worst attendance record at the House of Commons COVID-19 committee, with only a 47% attendance rate. We can contrast that with the Bloc at 73%, Liberals at 76% and the NDP at 85%, with the NDP once again being the worker bees of Parliament. Is that not the real reason Conservatives are opposing extending hours and working harder on behalf of Canadians?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is 100% right that the times we are in right now demand that we put shoulder to wheel and do more.

I do have to say that I cannot speak for the motivations of anybody else, but let me be very clear of the motivation we are coming to the table with and that, I believe, the hon. member is coming to the table with as well in asking his question, which is that every time we ask how many speakers there are going to be or how much time the party opposite needs in order to be able to adjudicate their arguments with respect to legislation, we are frustrated in that and given no answers. Even on the bills they support, the Conservatives will not tell us how many speakers they have. It is a never-ending cascade of obstruction.

Canadians do not expect for Parliament to have one party stand in the way of all the other parties being able to do their work when there is essential legislation that we must pass.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have just a small note, given the last statement by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, but the worker bees of Parliament are quite often the Greens.

To the hon. government House leader, as Greens, we do not have access to the House leaders meetings. I know that cannot be discussed as they are in camera. However, I am at a loss to know why a procedural motion to allow this work to proceed was not able to be agreed upon without time allocation.

What also comes to mind, after an amendment was put forward and also after hearing the hon. member for Shefford from the Bloc, who spoke moments ago, is if there is an issue here that is a real issue or if this is gamesmanship. The real issue is whether the House can do its work and whether every committee can be properly staffed if we move in the direction of the motion before us.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's question gets to the core of a matter in front of us, which is that, if we are direct with each other, tell each other exactly how many speakers there are going to be and how much time is needed on a particular bill, then maybe we will need additional hours or maybe we will not. I will be very direct. Oftentimes, it has only been the Conservative Party from which I have not been able to get straight or clear answers on how much time is needed.

What does that mean? Let us look at Bill C-9, which was a technical bill that was supported by all parties, and for days we ended up debating this bill, with no clarity on when it was going to end. Then, when we had an issue with interpretation and lost 20 minutes, we asked for that 20 minutes back and the Conservatives said no, meaning that we had an entire other day of House business that was wasted. Every day of House business is critical, and it needs to be used for real issues.

We are saying we should focus on the real priorities that we have and, if and when we have unanimity, we do not need to chew up enormous House time.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, since the NDP and Liberals signed the coalition agreement, the two parties have voted together over 90% of the time. In that period, Conservatives brought eight motions to the House calling for tax relief, and the coalition defeated all of them.

The NDP is 60 for 60 on votes supporting government legislation. This is the 14th closure motion supported by the NDP to shut down debate, even though it used to call these motions undemocratic. Tonight, the hapless NDP is even prepared to vote for a motion that will further limit the resources of parliamentary committees doing very important business for Canadians.

Is there anything the NDP will not do for the Prime Minister?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, again I find it incredibly strange that the argument from the other side is that a motion to extend sitting hours and expand speaking time is somehow limiting debate.

[An hon. member]

There are committees.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hear people yelling “committees”. The reality is that committees do incredibly important work and there are 31 of them, but the idea that the House, the legislature, should take a back seat to 31 other committees when there is essential legislation for us to deal with makes no sense. We need to look at what is on the agenda of those 31 committees and make sure that, where there is critical work, it is getting done.

As the Speaker and all members know, a lot of what the members on the other side are talking about is not looking into the issues facing Canadians or how they can make life more affordable. They are on a hunt that is partisan, trolling for things that they can put in newspaper headlines. That is not something that the House should be taking a back seat to. That is not something that the House should sit back and let them play partisan games on committees being a priority when there is essential legislation that needs to be adopted to help Canadians.