Debates of May 23rd, 2024

Health

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by commending the advocacy and work of the member for Charlottetown, who has been working tirelessly to make sure that Islanders get the coverage they need, saving them hundreds of dollars. Many times I have been out with him in Prince Edward Island over the last 10 months, talking to people about what that coverage means, not just for affordability but for prevention, to make sure they do not wind up with a chronic disease or illness.

The Conservatives say that it is too much for people to hope that they can get the medicine they need. They say that it is too much to hope that somebody can get the dental care they need. A hundred thousand people got dental care in just three weeks. We are getting it done.

Ethics

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at his billion-dollar green slush fund, the Prime Minister's hand-picked chair is being investigated for lining her own pockets, and resigned in disgrace. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, the Prime Minister clearly is not worth the cost or that corruption.

However, another NDP-Liberal appointed director has been caught funnelling $42 million to companies that she has stakes in. The Liberals knew it, but then they promoted her to the Infrastructure Bank anyway. She suddenly resigned. They gave her keys to a bigger mansion after burglarizing the first one.

Will they investigate every dollar she handed out?

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

Mr. Speaker, now we are seeing the Conservative Party of Canada going after any company that works against climate change in our country. That is what those Conservatives are about. Behind these questions they are against new technologies to help fight climate change.

Those members know very well, and I have said it many times in the House, that the moment we heard about the allegation we launched an investigation. The chair has resigned; the CEO has resigned. We are investigating. We are going to make sure that every dollar that is spent is going to be well spent. We are going to restore governance, we are going to restore confidence and we are going to keep investing in Canadian companies.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we only see the minister get animated after people get caught, which is really too late.

The NDP-Liberal appointed chair and another director were caught stuffing their pockets full of taxpayer cash. They got caught; they resigned. They are being investigated. However, a third one, who was found to be furthering her own interests, was then appointed to the Infrastructure Bank, but suddenly resigned, much to the surprise of the minister responsible. This is life after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. It has no idea where the money is going.

We need to protect Canadian tax dollars. Will the government call in the RCMP to investigate?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member just asked that same question, which the minister just answered.

However, while we are here and have some time, I want to know why a woman in Aurora, named Sabrina Maddeaux, and another woman, named Rachel Gilliland, are alleging things that do not seem quite kosher in Conservative nomination land. That is after accusations by Ms. Maddeaux of illegality in a Conservative nomination. They just happen to be the only two women in that nomination race. Why?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Order. I know that all members, especially all ministers, understand that when questions are asked, they should be about the administration of the government or the committees. It is the same thing that is expected of ministers, to respond to the administration of government.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

Democratic Institutions

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after the Prime Minister got caught turning a blind eye to Beijing's interference in our elections, his government was dragged kicking and screaming into calling a public inquiry. It has now been revealed that the Prime Minister and the cabinet are obstructing the work of the inquiry by refusing to turn over documents to the commissioner.

I have a simple question. Will the Prime Minister end the obstruction and turn over all documents requested by Madam Justice Hogue, unredacted, yes or no?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows very well that there is no obstruction at all. He should have a word with his House leader, with whom I worked very collaboratively all summer in setting up the Hogue Commission. We agreed to all the details of the terms of reference, including the fact that solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidence were essential things that needed to be protected.

Of course, the people who served in Mr. Harper's government would know the attachment he had to those principles, but our government went a step further and made available cabinet documents that were relevant to this inquiry. We will continue to do everything necessary to allow it to do its work.

Justice

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our government stands proudly on the side of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, if elected, the official opposition could become the first federal government to create laws that would knowingly violate the rights of Canadians. It would do this by invoking the notwithstanding clause, trampling on our charter rights. As a parliamentarian, but even more as a Canadian, I find this simply chilling.

Will the Minister of Justice please elaborate on the importance of protecting the charter rights of Canadians?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the charter protects our right to free expression. It protects our right to worship whom we choose. It protects our right to equality. It protects our right to be presumed innocent.

If we stand for freedom, we do not get to cherry-pick which rights and freedoms we defend, but that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has said he would do. He has openly declared that he would use the notwithstanding clause to trample on these very charter rights. No federal leader has ever done this in Canadian history.

Our government enacted the charter, our government stands by the charter, and we will always defend the charter rights and freedoms of every Canadian.

Canada Post Corporation

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, decades ago, the Liberals promised to stop the closure of rural post offices. However, in classic Liberal fashion, they have broken that promise year after year. We have lost 500 rural post offices since 1994, 33 last year alone. Before the Conservatives start heckling, their record when they were in government was even worse.

How many rural post offices are going to have to close before the minister finally does something?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite because he speaks to a very relevant issue that is affecting Canadians all across Canada, not just in his community but everywhere.

We are working closely with Canada Post to ensure that we change its ways so that we can improve delivery across the country. It is a serious issue; we recognize that. We are having deliberations over it. We are working closely with Canadians. We are going to be spending more time discussing how we can improve the operations of the organization to better serve Canada.

Finance

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Liberal government on achieving the highest interest rates in two decades, on the sustained high food prices that have not been seen since the 1980s and on reducing Canadian living standards to almost the lowest levels in 40 years.

Spread out over 20 years and beyond the next election, budget 2024 solves nothing. Yes, Canada has come a long way since 2015. Unfortunately, it is in the wrong direction.

Given the long list of failures, will the finance minister resign, take the entire cabinet with her, and go paint leadership posters for Mark Carney?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on keeping inflation low so that interest rates can come down. We have a fiscally responsible plan, and we will continue to maintain strong economic indicators, a AAA credit rating and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, all while having supports for Canadians in budget 2024, such as affordable housing, such as ECE and early childhood learning, such as supports for a national school food program.

We have a comprehensive plan and we are compassionate.

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, it is time for what some say is the most exciting part of the week.

I just want to point something out, and I hope the Minister of Public Safety hears this. It is important to note for the record that in the MOU that set up the Hogue inquiry, during the discussions on that, requests were made by the official opposition to include very strict parameters about providing cabinet confidences to Justice Hogue. We were told we were in a take-it-or-leave-it position, so it is very disingenuous to now say it was the opposition that agreed to holding up cabinet confidences. Of course, we would have no reason to want or agree to that. That is an important thing to clarify.

As the Thursday question is related to the upcoming business of the House, I would like to ask the government House Leader this: What will the business be for the rest of this week and for next week, and can Canadians hope for some relief at the pumps? Will the government bring in legislation to remove all federal gas taxes, the carbon tax, the excise tax and the GST, off fuel so Canadians can afford a modest summer road trip?

As the government-caused inflation and interest rate crisis has taken such a big bite out of Canadians' paycheques, many are hoping just to be able to scrape enough together for their hotel bills and fuel bills. Taking the tax off fuel would go a long way towards providing Canadians an affordable summer vacation. Can members and Canadians expect any legislation that would provide them with that much-needed relief?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am always entertained by my hon. colleague across the aisle, with whom I work regularly. With gas at about $1.50 a litre in Ontario, if I am not mistaken, it is a lot cheaper than it is in Alberta, where Premier Danielle Smith unilaterally hiked the cost of gasoline by 13¢. She did not provide, of course, the very substantial rebates on the price on pollution we have put on and that the Conservatives would take away.

Of course, that was not his question. Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-58, concerning replacement workers, at report stage and at third reading. On Monday, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.

Wednesday, we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑70 on countering foreign interference, which is already a strong response to the issues being investigated by the Hogue commission. We will hear from the Minister of Public Safety at second reading of Bill C‑70.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

Finally, as is only proper, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate on the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) later today:

(a) the time provided for consideration of the Main Estimates in committee of the whole be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each;

(b) members speaking during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with one or more other members; and

(c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Federal Intrusions in the Exclusive Jurisdictions of Quebec and the Provinces

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, prior to question period getting under way, I said that, eventually, we will be in an election campaign. When that happens, I will love the contrast that we are going to share with Canadians of the difference between the Liberals and the Government of Canada and the “Reformers”, or the unholy alliance between the Conservatives-Reformers and the Bloc party. I say that in all sincerity, because there is a substantial difference.

In their alliance, the Bloc and the Conservatives show the same attitude toward federal spending on programs that are important to Canadians. They have in common the way they have voted and indicated their lack of support for national programs that are being supported in many different ways across the country. It is important for us to show that contrast. The closer we get to 2025 and an election, the more Canadians are going to see that contrast. I believe they are going to say they want and support the types of programs that reflect Canadian values. They want a government that is prepared to work with other levels of government to provide the types of services that Canadians expect parliamentarians to deliver.

On the one hand, we have the Reformers, who masquerade as the Conservatives in the House. On that side, it is cut, cut, cut, and then we have a government that recognizes investing in Canadians is good for all of Canada. I would like to amplify that statement by talking about some of the programs that we have brought in or that the budget is talking about.

The Bloc brought forward a motion today that says, in essence, give us money or give us nothing. I understand that, because they are separatists. They want Canada to be broken up. They do not support Canada as a nation, the way it is today.

Let us talk about some of the programs. We have a national dental care program that is providing services in every region of our country. Seniors today are benefiting from that program. Children have benefited from the program. It is a program that continues to expand in every region of the country. We have political parties on the opposite side, the unholy alliance, saying that they are going to get rid of or that they do not support the Canada dental care plan, taking it away from seniors.

I would highlight, for example, that every member of Parliament has seniors in their ridings, on fixed incomes, who have registered for the program and are receiving services. The unholy alliance is prepared to get rid of that program. The Conservatives will say it is a cost factor; they do not believe we should be spending money on that particular issue. Then we have the Bloc saying that it is provincial jurisdiction and that Ottawa should not be entering into provincial jurisdiction. Both arguments have a great deal of myth to them. The fact of the matter is that this particular program, like other programs, has been developed through a great deal of consultation and working with Canadians, which is why we have it today.

Unfortunately, both of those opposition parties are voting against it. What they are really doing is putting party politics ahead of the needs of the constituents they represent.

Let us talk about the pharmacare program. It does not matter what area of the country or what province Canadians live in, if they are diabetic, they would receive free medical assistance through pharmaceuticals to deal with their diabetes. We are not talking about thousands of Canadians. We are talking about millions of Canadians who would benefit from that one aspect of the pharmacare program that is being introduced. However, once again, we have the Conservatives saying no to those constituents that they represent who are in need of that medication. One has to question why. What is the motivating factor behind it?

Again, what we see in that motivation is the Conservative's and the Bloc's attitudes towards health care. They do not believe that the federal government has any role in health care at all, with the exception of handing over money. Ottawa is nothing more than an ATM to them, and the only role Ottawa is to play is to give money to the provinces for health care.

It does not matter to them if a service is in one area of the country and not in another area of the country. They do not see the visionary policies that would provide pharmacare and dental care. Dental care is a health care service. Every year we have children who, because they are not getting the dental service that they require, end up in emergency rooms. Do members know how many times individuals with diabetes get amputations because they are not getting the proper medical supplies they need? It is all tied in to health care.

Then we have the Bloc members, the separatists, who say that they just do not care about it. They are more concerned about dividing and breaking up the country. That is the role they play. I can appreciate, to a certain degree, that at least the Bloc members are transparent.

However, why would the Conservatives take that sort of an approach? They should talk to your constituents. I believe they would find that people love the health care that we provide today across Canada. It is a national program.

We have the Canada Health Act to protect the integrity of the system. We have a government that has invested hundreds of millions, actually, let me get it right, as we just committed in negotiations with provinces of $198 billion. That is $198 billion over the next 10 years to commit to Canada's health system, to deal with issues such as long-term care, mental health and many other issues, including labour-related issues. We are concerned about doctors and nurses, and many other aspects of health care, including the support workers who play such a critical role. We recognize that importance.

When I posed the question in the House of Commons to the leader of the Conservative-Reform Party earlier today, the response was exceptionally disappointing. All he did was reaffirm the degree to which the Conservative Party today has moved to the right and the people it is listening to.

The Conservatives do not believe in a health care system to the degree that we have it today. There is a hidden Conservative agenda. When we think of the health care we have today, we can look at the province of Saskatchewan and how it contributed to having a national health care system.

We now have a national child care system. We needed to look to the province of Quebec and what the province of Quebec provided, which ultimately led to us having a $10-a-day national child care program. It is the benefit of a federation that we can take a look at what is working well and look at how we can turn things into a program so that all Canadians can benefit from it.

Whether someone lives in Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Edmonton, Halifax, Whitehorse or anywhere in between, we understand that there are national things that we can all treasure, whether they are programs such as OAS or employment insurance, which were brought in by prime ministers such as Mackenzie King, or the types of programs that the Prime Minister and the government, this collection of Liberal members of Parliament, continue to push for, day in and day out.

We are looking and listening to what our constituents are telling us, bringing that forward here to Ottawa, and developing policy that is going to help Canadians. Unfortunately, time and time again, we see opposition coming from the Bloc, in its breaking up the nation, and the Conservatives, who do not care about providing the type of social safety net that Canadians have grown to believe in and want to see expanded.

There is nothing wrong with being a government that cares with competence, and that is what the Prime Minister and the government have continuously delivered for Canadians.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleague's passion, but it is not always well directed.

I am going to read him two quotes, and I would like him to give me his opinion.

These are quotes from Lester B. Pearson, a Liberal prime minister, just like his. He said, “Although Quebec is a province in this Confederation, it is more than a province, for it is the home of a people: that is why it is fair to say that it is a nation within the nation.”

He also said that we should take steps, arrangements, so that Quebec would have de facto power in the areas it wished to have under its authority. He said, “By imposing a centralism which, if acceptable to some provinces, was certainly not acceptable to Quebec, and by insisting that Quebec be [treated in a manner] similar to the other provinces, we could destroy Canada”. A former prime minister said that.

Is my colleague aware that this is what he is doing?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member himself is aware that I have many generations of family history in Canada, which goes back to the province of Quebec. One of my greatest regrets is that many individuals in western Canada lost the ability to speak French because of all sorts of issues. Ultimately, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the initiatives he took ensured that the French language was being spoken more outside of the province of Quebec.

I have consistently, through my years as a parliamentarian, argued just how wonderful the French language is, how it contributes to the Canadian identity and how it makes the province of Quebec such a unique, loving place, not only to visit, but also to live in. Quebec, just like other provinces, contributes immensely. I made reference to the child care program. There are many aspects, including the culture and the arts.

The province of Manitoba and the province of Quebec share many things in common. On industry, I can talk about the aerospace industry. I can talk about hydro and concerns about the environment. There are all sorts of things that we do not have to tear down in the country to appreciate. I care for the province of Quebec as much as I care for other areas of Canada, and I will continue to fight and articulate why it is so critically important that Quebec lead not only Canada, but also North America, in the French language and the unique role that Quebec plays in ensuring that French will continue to be not only spoken, but also—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We will move on to the next question as we are running out of time.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has the floor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the member for Winnipeg North stand in this place to loudly proclaim his support for the important programs of pharmacare and dental care. This is even more so due to the fact that, in the 43rd Parliament, when it came to Bill C-213, introduced by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and a motion on dental care, which was introduced by former MP Jack Harris, that member and the entire Liberal caucus voted against those measures. They voted against pharmacare and against dental care.

I am glad to see that, on the road to Damascus, the Liberals have arrived at their conversion. I just want to know what changed. What led the Liberals to suddenly have this vision that these were, in fact, the right programs to put in place now? Could it be that the New Democrats forced them to do it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I get a flashback of being with my daughter Cindy, who is an MLA in the province of Manitoba, and I can recall us being on Keewatin Street, where we had these signs. We were saying that we wanted to have a national pharmacare program and that it would be wonderful to see the Province of Manitoba work with Ottawa to make that happen. I can recall a throne speech a few years back in which Ottawa made reference to the fact that we were looking for a willing province.

I like to think that, now that Manitoba has an NDP government, maybe we will get that much more sympathy for getting it. I have introduced many petitions over the years on the importance of a pharmacare program. I have spoken to it inside the House on many occasions.

Am I glad that it is here? I am glad. I believe the NDP also played an important role in it, and I give them credit for that, but I think that there are members of Parliament on all sides of the House, although maybe not among the Conservatives, but possibly, who support the idea of having a national pharmacare program, because it makes a whole lot of sense.

When I was in the Manitoba legislature, I was the health care critic. I can tell members that a national pharmacare program, especially if one gets the provinces working with Ottawa, could really do some wonderful things. It would be to the betterment of all of us.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I refer the parliamentary secretary to Confederation in 1867. The historical compromise was to have assemblies that were equally sovereign in their respective areas of jurisdiction. However, listening to the parliamentary secretary's speech, what we see is nothing but interference. All he is doing is justifying the interference, and he is breaking this agreement of a federation made up of equally sovereign assemblies.

In the end, does he want to have a legislative union, a centralized government with an Ottawa-knows-best attitude that dictates to the provinces, who are mere administrators?