Debates of Sept. 24th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative leader is playing games. That is what he is doing. He likes to stir up trouble, but he does not actually have a serious proposal for Canadians. This is all just a political game to him, and it is all about his ego. His actions today are strictly in his own self-interest.

Canadians and Quebeckers have nothing to gain from what he is doing today.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford.

In 2021, the people made a choice. Canadians and Quebeckers chose a minority government. It was simply a renewal of what was in place between 2019 and 2021. I was leader at the time, and I can say that things were going well. For two years, we negotiated and discussed. Despite COVID‑19, I thought we worked well together and our approach succeeded in improving life for Quebeckers.

Then, the NDP and the Liberals cobbled together a majority with no respect for what had happened during the election. That is when the attacks on Quebec and on provincial jurisdictions began. For the first time in history, excessive centralization became a fact of life. Despite its difficulty in managing its own responsibilities, this government started poking its nose into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. In the meantime, the NDP were doing cartwheels, wild with delight, claiming that it was the right thing to do considering the NDP's dream of seeing the provinces disappear. The New Democrats, as Mr. Duceppe once said, are just Liberals in a hurry.

Now, the situation has revolved back to the one we anticipated during the 2021 election, a minority government. One thing is very strange, however. The NDP, self-proclaimed champions of the environment, forged ties with a government that spent $83 billion on dirty oil from western Canada. The NDP supported that government. Someone will have to explain that to me, as well.

Let us return to the topic at hand. For three weeks now, the government has found itself in a true minority status. The Bloc Québécois will try to increase its influence over this government. The Bloc will try to negotiate in an effort to make things better for Quebeckers. What is good for Quebec is good for the Bloc Québécois. That is what we believed, and we have been shouting it from the rooftops.

There is a list of things we would like to accomplish.

First, there is Bill C‑319, which will definitively put an end to this government's discriminatory treatment of seniors between the ages of 65 and 74.

Another priority of ours is to ensure that the bill on quotas receives royal assent so that protection is built into international agreements. There are 6,000 Quebec businesses and 100,000 workers that depend on this bill in part. We will work to finally get that bill passed and implemented.

Another important issue is distribution of asylum seekers. The government, which finally issued its mea culpa, must offer a solution that allows Quebeckers to catch their breath. It must enhance the services offered to all Quebeckers and to newcomers as well, so that they receive better service from this government. That is the position of the Bloc Québécois

Now we have this Conservative motion is before us. The Conservatives say that it is the best new thing since sliced bread, but at some point we will all have to wake up and realize that this motion, which arrived in week two of this session and in week three of this newly minority government, has come upon us awfully fast. We in the Bloc could choose to trigger elections. In an upset last week we captured a stronghold riding, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. We have the wind in our sails, and that is the truth. We have been at the top of the polls for some time now. We are potentially in a position to make gains.

Like excited poodles hearing their owner come home, we could pull the trigger on elections. The reason we in the Bloc Québécois are exercising restraint is that our goal is not to improve our own situation. Although our members, candidates and apparatus are all ready, we are here for Quebeckers. Our work is to do what is best for them at this time, and that happens to be establishing a dialogue with a minority government, which has to reach agreements with the various opposition parties. Obviously, there is no agreement possible with the Conservative Party, so that leaves the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

That is one of the reasons why we will be voting against this motion. The second reason is that there will be plenty of non-confidence votes between now and Christmas, and we see no need to hit the ground running. We will have plenty of opportunities. What we are saying is that we should give them a chance. And by “them”, we mean the Liberals. They take their sweet time on occasion, but we are going to give them a chance to show us they can earn our confidence, or, more precisely, Quebeckers' confidence. Needless to say, this is a limited-time offer. As I was saying, this government has one year left, at most. That, then, is the second reason why we will be voting against this motion. To recap, the first reason is that we want to make gains for Quebec and the second is that there is no rush; there will be other votes between now and Christmas. According to our calculations, there will be five to seven votes following this one.

There is a third reason why we will be voting against this motion. We are watching the Conservatives talk and we are not exactly convinced we want to see them take power that quickly. When we hear the Leader of the Opposition, a compulsive sloganeer if there ever was one—I mean, he spits out slogans like there is no tomorrow—we see that he basically says nothing. He offers no solutions, only slogans. We do not find this reassuring. When we listen to him speak and ask the Conservatives whether they have a plan for Quebec, their answer is no, they do not have a plan for Quebec. As far as they are concerned, Quebeckers are Canadians, and if Canadians find reasons to vote for them, Quebeckers will too. Does the idea of a distinct society ring a bell with them?

In some cases our position in Quebec differs from Canada's. There is a reason the Bloc Québécois is here. The Conservatives say it is no big deal that they are not doing anything special for Quebec. I asked the Conservatives' Quebec lieutenant if the Conservatives had a plan. He seemed taken aback by the idea of having a plan. Ten seconds later, he woke up and I heard him say with a straight face: There is no plan for Quebec, what is good for Canadians is good for Quebeckers.

We might wonder what the Quebec lieutenant is good for. What a useless role that is, being the Conservatives' Quebec lieutenant, honestly. When people want to know what the Conservatives' position is on Quebec, that is no way to handle it. The slogan king is going to start to say just about anything. It is time to limit discussions: simple question, simple answer. Otherwise, everyone gets mixed up. Even his Quebec MPs are often confused because they would like him to say things about Quebec, but the things he says are never good.

The Conservative leader just told us that they are not centralists like the Liberals. In the same breath, he says that mayors are idiots and that he is going to cut housing funds unless they do things the Conservatives' way. However, they claim they are not centralists. What else could it be called? They say they are not centralists, but they support the third link in Quebec City. If Quebeckers want a tramway instead, they will not get a cent from the federal government. A large part of the federal government's money, however, comes from Quebec. In that case, it should be returned to Quebeckers. But no, the Conservatives do not believe in public transit. They prefer a third link, but they are not centralists, not a bit.

The Act respecting the laicity of the State is universally supported in Quebec. There are some Quebecker who are against secularism, but almost all of them say that it is up to Quebeckers to decide and that the federal government should mind its own business. Instead, here is what the federal government is doing: It is using tax dollars collected from Quebeckers to hire lawyers to take the Government of Quebec to court over this law. When we tell the Conservative leader that he should oppose the government challenging a law that was democratically passed by the Quebec National Assembly, his response is that he, too, would challenge that law. What then is the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives?

Let us talk a bit about health transfers. Quebec has made request after request. The Liberal government put together an agreement that really upset Quebeckers. They were going ballistic and coming to blows on buses. One would think maybe the Conservatives would do better, but no. They are saying that they think that the health agreement is fine the way it is.

I could go on for a long time. However, the idea of replacing the Liberal government with a Conservative one is not all that enticing. What would it take? It is not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. The hon. member can continue his thought during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, I acknowledge and appreciate my colleague's contribution to this debate.

That said, I need to set the record straight about a few things. It always makes me laugh when he talks about the third link. Does he remember his leader's truly impressive dithering during the election campaign? In the morning, he was in favour of it; in the afternoon, he was no longer sure; and by evening, he was against it. The next day, his MPs had no idea what to do. That was the Bloc Québécois's position on the third link during the last campaign. He wants to bring it up again? Fine, but those are the facts.

He said that we are not committed and do not want to do anything. That is completely false. We set out specific commitments on housing and auto theft. They are very specific and very detailed.

The Bloc Québécois folks are telling us with a straight face that they will give the government a chance. After nine years, how can the Bloc Québécois have confidence in this Prime Minister, the most centralist, wasteful and anti-Quebec prime minister we have ever had?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer is simple.

Things worked from 2019 to 2021. We made gains in Quebec because this government held a minority. At the time, I was the House leader for the Bloc Québécois. We found solutions. We made real gains for Quebec.

I am optimistic by nature. I have faith in other people. It seems to me that the Prime Minister is in a similar situation to the one he was in between 2019 and 2021. My colleague is waving his arms, but I am telling him that, if this does not work, then we will trigger an election. I look forward to seeing what the Conservatives will offer Quebeckers.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for all of the work we do together.

Could he give specific examples of what he is afraid the Conservatives will do? We know that they are going to make cuts to many programs. There are a lot of things that are important, not just for Quebeckers but for Canadians, things like CBC/Radio-Canada, which the Conservatives want to get rid of.

Could my hon. colleague talk a little about the things that the Conservatives plan to do that Quebeckers and Canadians should be concerned about?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had already started listing them. There were a lot.

What is disappointing with the Conservatives is that they deny that Quebec, which for the time being is part of Canada, is a distinct society.

They talk about challenging Bill 21, a bill that was passed by Quebec's National Assembly. The Conservative leader also opposed Bill 96 on French in Quebec.

The Conservative leader wants to campaign on the carbon tax. He is like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. There is no carbon tax in Quebec. What will he do in Quebec for 40 days talking about something that does not exist? It is crazy.

With respect to centralization when it comes to housing and public transport, the Conservatives are centralist, but in a different way. They are not as centralizing as the Liberals and the NDP. The NDP holds that record.

Let us talk about immigration. Are they going to talk about solutions for immigration in Quebec? No, there will be nothing, like in Ouellette. There is nothing at all. That is what we are afraid of.

As long as we are switching between the Liberals and Conservatives, we will always be stuck with one or the other. We need to get rid of the federal government. That is the solution.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have noticed the tendency of the Conservatives to mislead Canadians. In the previous member's speech, there was a comment that, when the Conservatives were in power, Quebeckers were just happy.

There were huge movements to stop the cuts we were seeing from the Conservatives and the undermining of student rights and of women's rights with the cuts to women's programs. I am wondering if the member could speak to the danger of Conservatives when it comes to the health and well-being of Quebeckers.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we learned this week that a Conservative member attended an event where people were against abortion. That is problematic. People might have questions, but hearing things like that does not make things any easier.

When it comes to health, the problem is that the federal government is encroaching on Quebec's jurisdictions. Health is not a federal jurisdiction; it is Quebec's jurisdiction. The experts are in Quebec and in the provinces. That is their job. With all due respect, I would say to my NDP colleague and to the Liberals that the government needs to give Quebec the money, because Quebec is the expert. Quebec will manage that money properly.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is thrilled to see that the NDP-Liberal coalition appears to have come to an end. The people elected a minority government in 2019 and did not give anyone a blank cheque in 2021. The Bloc Québécois has a lot of weight when it comes to promoting Quebec's priorities and interests.

With the NDP-Liberal alliance, we again found ourselves with a government that completely ignores Quebec, its needs, its priorities and the consensuses reached by the National Assembly. There has been a growing centralization of decision-making power and, as a result, Canadians are deciding what is done in Quebec. There has also been a repeated rejection of Quebec's positions as expressed in unanimous resolutions in our National Assembly. Normally, when the National Assembly is unanimous, there is nothing more to be said.

I will start with a few examples.

There are the infrastructure programs. Quebec has requested the federal government to transfer the amounts unconditionally, since this is not federal infrastructure and Quebec must be free to manage its own land as it sees fit. The federal government has ignored this request. Worse yet, they added insult to injury by creating a federal department in charge of provincial infrastructure and municipalities. Even the Leader of the Opposition tried to get tough on municipalities.

There are the housing programs. Quebec asked that Ottawa respect its jurisdiction and simply help improve its programs. Not only did the Liberal-NDP alliance ignore that, but Quebec got burned and received less than its share of the money spent on new federal programs.

Quebec has repeatedly rejected federal interference through a myriad of unanimous resolutions. Every one of them has been ignored by the federal government, which continues to increase the number of federal strategies in areas that are not under its jurisdiction. Take, for example, the labour force, federal strategies addressing various aspects of health care, and the rejection of Quebec's consensus on advance requests for MAID. As the critic for seniors, I hear a lot about this last point.

Then we have the inadequate transfers to Quebec, which are not increasing quickly enough to meet the population's needs. This results in overcrowded classrooms and a health care system that is close to its breaking point. More substantial health transfers are urgently needed.

There again, they developed a whole range of federal programs in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction with money that should have been used to properly fund Quebec's essential programs. I will give an example. Last June, we criticized the age well at home initiative, a program launched by the federal government through the back door during its last campaign in Quebec. Lastly, Quebec groups do not have the money they should have. The Quebec minister responsible for seniors is asking that the funds be transferred. She has a home care plan but no, the federal government wants to set conditions.

All this is happing while the federal government, which barely provides Canadians with any services, managed to find the funding to hire 109,000 additional federal public servants whose main duty appears to be to tell Quebeckers what to do. In committee, I asked why we were outsourcing more. I did not get an answer.

The fiscal and environmental policy is largely focused on the needs of western Canada, with $83 billion in tax credits to the oil companies, plus $34 billion of our money pumped into the Trans Mountain pipeline. I will get back to this later. I would like people to stop telling me that we do not have enough money to implement Bill C-319.

Second, there have been changes in the House. The constituents of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun did well by Quebec last week by electing the Bloc Québécois candidate, adding to Quebec's voice and its political weight. I hope that we will be able to welcome our 33rd member of the Bloc Québécois soon.

The Bloc Québécois wants to know whether the government has taken note of this change and whether there will be a realignment that will allow Quebeckers to get something from the government soon. Only then will we be able to determine whether the government should fall or whether it should be given a little more time to fix its mistakes and take our priorities into account. We want more for Quebec. Rather than blindly opposing or supporting the Liberal or Conservative parties, the Bloc Québécois wants to move forward with issues that Quebeckers care about. If it is good for Quebec, we will support it. If it is not good for Quebec, we will reject it. This is nothing new; it is not a surprise. We have always been very clear where we stand. It is not as if we woke up one morning and decided on that.

In 2021, our campaign slogan was simply “Québécois”, or “Quebeckers”, to make it clear that, for us, only Quebec matters. In 2019, it was “Le Québec, c’est nous”, or “We are Quebec”, to indicate that we were the ones who would carry the Quebec consensus. In 2015, it was “On a tout à gagner”, or “We have everything to gain”, to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois was going to work to make Quebec win in Ottawa and achieve gains for Quebec. Today we are giving this government one last chance to earn our trust, to take immediate action for Quebeckers.

Fourth, let us talk about priorities. As a first step, we are calling on the new minority government to give royal recommendation to Bill C-319, which would put an end to the two classes of seniors and increase old age security by 10% for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74.

Old age security is one of the rare truly federal social programs. While the federal government meddles in many things, it has neglected its primary responsibilities. We want to give the government a chance to realign itself, assume its basic responsibilities and enable seniors to live a decent life.

According to the OECD, Canada is one the industrialized nations where the population faces the greatest decline in purchasing power on retirement. We could do much better. I do not want to hear that it costs too much. It would cost $3 billion a year. That represents 0.57% of government spending.

Earlier, my hon. colleague from La Prairie aptly said that it is not the cost that is stopping the government; it just has other priorities. There is the $34 billion to buy and build the Trans Mountain pipeline and the $83 billion in tax gifts to the oil companies. Do they really need it? The government paid $2 billion to Sun Life, a private company, to run the federal dental insurance plan when this could have been done for free with a transfer to Quebec. It is an area under Quebec's responsibility.

We are asking the government, which is now a minority government, to focus on its responsibilities. Its central mission is to protect our people, especially retirees between the ages of 65 and 74, the people it deliberately set aside in favour of its own priorities, which are not Quebeckers' priorities. The rest will be judged on merit.

We will oppose even the slightest interference, including on a confidence vote. If the government ever contradicts the unanimous will of Quebec's National Assembly in the slightest, we will oppose it, including on a confidence vote. When we find that the government has failed to recognize its minority status and the importance of heeding the Bloc Québécois's demands, which are widely supported in Quebec, we will pull the plug. Doing so today, before we even know whether the government is cognizant of the new reality, would amount to taking a decent retirement income away from Quebec seniors.

What is more, we promised farmers that we would do everything in our power to protect supply management. As the member for Shefford, I have no choice but to say it. The members for Montcalm, Berthier—Maskinongé and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will be in the Senate tomorrow morning to encourage senators to quickly pass our Bill C-282, which was passed by the House almost a year and a half ago. This bill would prevent any future government from creating new breaches in the supply management system for farmers in Quebec. That is crucial. These are real issues facing real people, not the frenzied spectacle that the Conservatives are putting on today.

Voting in favour of the Conservatives' motion would be irresponsible and unworthy of the mandate Quebeckers gave us to defend them. As members of Parliament, our work is to represent and defend our constituents. That is why we were elected.

The Conservatives' motion has nothing to do with any issue whatsoever. In fact, the Conservatives' motion is just a game. We have all seen the polls, and we know that the current government is nearing its end. What is more, we are eager to ask Quebeckers again for their support. We have always done everything we can to show them we are worthy of their trust. That is what we are doing once again today. Given the results of the LaSalle—Émard—Verdun by-election, we have nothing to fear on that account.

However, it is far from certain that a new government will be for the best. Every time the Conservative Party talks about public policy, it is to ask for the elimination of the carbon tax outside Quebec. There is absolutely nothing for Quebeckers in that.

Claiming that the Bloc Québécois has become friends with the federal Liberals is just nonsense. We trust Quebeckers, but the House of Commons and the federal government are controlled by Canadians. Moreover, the Bloc Québécois has no faith in any government in the federal system. Today's motion would have us choose between the Liberals and the Conservatives in Canada, but we choose Quebec. We want more for Quebec. Right now, we are trying to help our people. Then we will decide if it is worth it, but not today.

A majority of the House of Commons passed Bill C-319 in principle. After a detailed study of the text, the committee unanimously returned it to the House of Commons for final passage, which could happen within the next few weeks.

There is, however, a problem. Since the bill involves spending, the government has veto rights. We are asking the government to lift its veto and give royal recommendation to Bill C-319 so Parliament can pass it at third reading. In committee, the members from all parties voted in favour of the bill. However, today, when it comes time to buckle down and implement the bill, the Liberals and Conservatives appear to be hesitating. I remind you that the first part of the bill aims to eliminate discrimination based on age. Let us put an end to this unacceptable inequity.

In the 2021 budget, the Liberals created two classes of seniors. People aged 75 and over saw their pension increase by 10%. People between the ages of 65 and 74 got nothing. It is time to put an end to this. I am not the only one saying it: Every seniors' group I have talked to in my two-year tour agrees. I see my colleagues. I met with seniors in Mirabel, Terrebonne and Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

Everyone agrees, including the people at FADOQ. Enough is enough. Let us put an end to this unacceptable inequity. Let us give the government one last chance. We must seek royal recommendation for the dignity of seniors.

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

Madam Speaker, just a few days ago, Quebec Premier François Legault urged the Bloc Québécois to vote with the Conservatives on this confidence motion and send Canadians into a carbon tax election.

Why does that member, as well as her leader, disrespect the will and request of the premier of her province, who has said that the Prime Minister and his government disrespect Quebeckers every day?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I already answered this question in my speech. I spoke of the motions unanimously adopted in Quebec's National Assembly. As far as I know, there has not been a motion in the National Assembly to trigger an election. Our demand is clear: When a motion is adopted unanimously in the National Assembly, we represent and defend the interests of Quebeckers. That, however, is not the case when it comes to the question my colleague just asked me.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is another dismal day in the House playing these games with the member for Stornoway, yet we learned this morning that 492 people in Lebanon were murdered by the Israeli Air Force, 90 who were children. We have learned continually about the direct murder of doctors, journalists, students and children in Gaza, war crimes against humanity—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You had already mentioned to that colleague that he address, recognize and mention members using their appropriate titles. The “member for Stornoway” is not an appropriate title.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised at the absolute disinterest in the murder of children and crimes against humanity from the members of the Conservative Party, but Canada needs to take a better stand. We have to speak up for the rule of international law, something the Conservatives are refusing to do and the Liberals are hiding on.

Humanity is watching us at this moment. Are we going to stand up to end the mass killings by the Israeli army in Lebanon and Gaza, yes or no?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, that comes back to what I was saying in my speech about how we have to wonder whether we would really be better served by the Liberals or the Conservatives. Our leader said that it is a bit like being bitten by a snake or a tarantula. When it comes to foreign affairs, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals, who said that Canada was back, have proven that they are truly capable of showing leadership on the international stage. I hope that Quebec will soon speak with is own voice in the community of nations, so that it can share its ideas on international relations.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we are debating a Conservative motion that is really about the price on pollution. That may interest the Bloc Québécois. We know the Conservatives do not believe that climate change is real. Could my colleague tell us why it is important to have a climate change plan and why that is important to Quebeckers and Canadians?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I talked about that in my speech as well. We are asking the Liberals to be logical. They cannot have a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while they continue to fund oil companies. Come on. The Bloc Québécois is logical. We want oil company funding and subsidies to end because climate change and the environment are crucial issues. That said, since this is probably my last opportunity to speak, I will warn the Liberals to stop taking intellectual shortcuts and spreading disinformation in their answers.

This is not the first time Bloc Québécois members have advocated for seniors. It is part of our history and our DNA. I would remind the Conservatives that we voted against the last few budgets because the Liberals were unable to deliver the number-one thing we wanted. Ever since I have been here, we have been asking the Liberals to end this unacceptable inequality and take care of seniors by increasing old age security for everyone. That is why I am telling the Liberals to stop taking intellectual shortcuts. The Bloc Québécois has always advocated for seniors, and we will continue to do so.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

People across the country strongly believe that we should help each other and that caring for our neighbours makes us stronger. One value we all share is our support for a universal and entirely free public health care system. Unfortunately, decades of budget cuts have put our health care system at risk. We know that Conservative leaders have made cuts to health care in the past. The Conservative Party did the same during its time in office and wants to do so again. It voted against dental care and universal pharmacare. It continually votes against our health care system.

As a result, unless our health care system receives sufficient funding, people will have to wait longer for the services they need. The Conservatives want to privatize our health care system. This means that people will have to pay for access to services, which goes against Canadians' values.

We saw that the Liberals did not have the courage or the strength to stop the Conservatives' budget cuts across the country. The Conservative premiers, like Danielle Smith, Doug Ford and even François Legault, have all three continued to privatize our system. People are having to pay out of pocket instead of getting free services. People are paying the price.

The NDP wants to strengthen our health care system. We want to work with the provinces to have a stronger health care system. We believe in the value of keeping a universal, public and completely free system. That is why we will vote against the Conservatives' motion, against the idea of making cuts to our health care system, in services that people need. We will vote against the Conservatives' motion.

Canadians believe fundamentally that we are better off when we take care of each other, when we look out for our neighbours, when we look out for one another and when we lift each other up. When we do that, we all rise together.

Everyone should be able to have a good job that allows them to find a place they can afford to live in, to put food on the table and to have a fridge full of groceries. We believe fundamentally that Canadians share the value, as the New Democrats do, of having a health care system that is public, universal and completely free, so people do not have to pay out of pocket.

We do not believe that Canadians should have to worry about racking up credit card debt to see a doctor. People should not have to worry about choosing to pay for a doctor over buying groceries for their family. This should not be a choice that Canadians have to make. We believe in a system that is there for people when they need it.

Sadly, people are losing hope. They see our health care system eroding. They see that it is impossible to build a good life. They see costs continuing to rise. They see that it is harder to put food on the table, to buy groceries and to pay rent.

Also, Canadians are worried each time they have to take their loved ones to see a doctor or when they get care for themselves. They are worried that getting better will be connected to a bill, a bill to see the doctor or to join a membership to even see a doctor. Canadians are worried that there is going to be a bill attached to buying the medication they need to stay well.

A bill for health care is the cost of the Conservatives. Every time Canadians see a doctor to get the health care they or their loved ones need, there will be a bill. When the member for Carleton was in cabinet, and let us be very clear, contrary to what he said, he and his party cut and gut health care. In fact, the Conservatives cut $43.5 billion out of health care.

The Conservatives might try to play loose with the facts, but the reality is that they cut health care, and it hurt. Premiers lined up to complain about the Harper cuts. People lined up to say that it was wrong. The Conservatives cut and it hurt. In fact, right off the bat, they cut 163 Canadian doctors and nurses. Wait times got longer. It was harder to find a family doctor. Waiting times in the emergency room skyrocketed. The wait for surgeries ballooned. People felt the pain. There is a cost to the Conservatives, and that cost is that people pay the price.

We do not have to look very far. We know that cutting health care is at the very core of Conservative values. We can see that happening right now. Conservative premiers are, brick by brick, trying to destroy our health care system. In Ontario, we know that Doug Ford is gleefully cutting health care, destroying our public health care system, putting health care workers and money into private clinics, which starves public health care, starves the public hospitals, and people end up waiting longer and longer to get that care. Conservative Premier Danielle Smith is destroying health care in Alberta. This is what Conservatives do. Look to any Conservative province, look to any province where Conservatives have been in power, and look at the state of the health care system. It will be in shambles, because that is what Conservatives do. They cut health care and people know it.

The more the Conservatives cut, the more the health care system falls apart. They set up the argument that now that they have starved this thing, now that they have broken it and it is not working, they will sell it to their greedy CEO corporate buddies and let them profit from it. For the Conservatives, they see sick people as an untapped cash cow. They look at sick people and ask how they can profit from their pain. They ask how they can profit from people who are sick. They ask how they can help their corporate buddies make money from their pain.

Right now, companies like Maple are charging Canadians up to $100 to visit a doctor, on top of a membership fee that they have to subscribe to be on the list to see those doctors. Who owns Maple? It turns out that it is owned by Loblaw. For the Conservatives, when it comes to the same corporate grocery store that sets our grocery prices and is ripping us off, they want it to also set the prices when it comes to seeing a doctor.

Here is what is even more shocking. The chief adviser to the Conservatives, Jenni Byrne, is a lobbyist for none other than Loblaw. Conservative insiders are directly benefiting from the privatization of our health care system. The Conservatives want to stop pharmacare. They voted against increases to our health care system in February 2023. They want to cut the pensions of people. They want to cut dental care.

We want to strengthen pensions. We want to expand dental care. We want to ensure health care is there for us when we need it. They want to cut health care. We want to shorten wait times. That is why we are not going to let the leader of the Conservatives call the shots. We are going to vote today against Conservative cuts and against a Conservative motion.

Let us take a minute to talk about the Liberals. The Liberals claim that they care about our health care system. They claim that they want to defend it, as if they are not in power and do not have the power to do something about it. When I mention the cuts that are happening to health care by provincial premiers, the Liberal government is standing by and letting them do it. It is letting our health care system be privatized. The Liberals are not using the federal tools, the tools that we have in the Canada Health Act. They are allowing it to happen.

In fact, we put forward a motion to stop the flow of public money, at the federal level, going to for-profit clinics. That motion was a strong signal to say that, no, we would not let this happen anymore. What did the Liberals do? They voted against that motion. They voted to allow for-profit companies to continue to starve our public health care system. When the private system takes all the health care workers and all the money, there is less in the public system and people have to wait longer in the ER rooms. They have to wait longer for their public care.

The Liberal government has done nothing to ban for-profit companies from scooping up health care workers. We have seen it do nothing to stop for-profit clinics that continue to rip off Canadians. It is because the Liberal government is too weak to stand up to Danielle Smith, too weak to stand up to Doug Ford and, frankly, too weak to stop the Conservative cuts proposed by the federal Conservatives. The Liberals are telling Canadians, when Conservative premiers tell us to pay up or wait longer, that this is okay, that they are going to do nothing about it.

We believe the next election is about an important choice for Canadians. After decades of cuts and broken promises, Canadians are going to need us to work to restore hope and give them relief. The next election is about that choice. It will be a choice between the cuts of Conservatives or the hope and relief of New Democrats. Hope and relief mean homes we can actually afford and not, as the Conservatives want, helping out their corporate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I did indicate that the member needed to wrap up, and the mics were closed before I got up. I think the technical team will take note of that for next time, but we are over time.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

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

Madam Speaker, there we go. There is the leader who has propped up the Prime Minister for the last four and a half years and sided with the government over 50 times when it levied time allocation and closure on bills, silencing the rest of the House. He is the leader who is complicit in the cover-ups and scandals we have seen from the Prime Minister over the last four and a half years.

Canadians really do have a choice: a leader who is Twitter tough or somebody who will truly stand up for Canadians, a leader who has covered up the scandals and corruption of the Prime Minister or somebody who will make life more affordable for Canadians under a Conservative government.

Canadians truly do have a choice to make: somebody who is Twitter tough and talks tough on social media or somebody who will actually be there for Canadians.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us talk about that choice. We are talking about health care today. I talked about the fact that the Conservative leader voted against dental care, voted against pharmacare and voted against increases to health care. Conservative premiers are destroying health care. They are cutting and gutting it. People out there can look at any province with a Conservative premier and look at the state of health care. They are destroying it. That is what the Conservatives want to do.

I asked a question directly of the member for Carleton about whether he would cut the dental care program and he did not answer. He does not have the courage to tell us to our faces, but we know what he would do. He would cut our health care system and make life harder for people. He would help his corporate buddies, for sure, and he would hurt Canadians.

That is the choice that Canadians will make in the next election. Do they want someone who will stand up for working-class people or someone who will help their corporate buddies? The choice is clear.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, my question for the NDP leader relates to the Conservative leader apparently having #incel on his YouTube sites for a number of years. I will quote what that means. According to Wikipedia, it means “involuntary celibate”. It is “a term associated with an online subculture of people (mostly white, male, and heterosexual)”. It blames, objectifies and denigrates women and girls as a result of someone being involuntarily celibate.

I would like the views of the NDP leader on why the Conservative leader put that hashtag, #incel, on his YouTube channel. What was the result he was trying to achieve?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservatives might have to answer that question more directly. We know the Conservatives like to do a lot of distracting from what is really going on and distracting from the truth.

Let us talk about what the Conservatives would actually do. They want to cut and gut health care. They want to cut pharmacare. They want to cut dental care. We know that people are benefiting from this program.

I have met with people on it. I met with Sue, a retired senior on a fixed income and cancer survivor who, because of her cancer treatment, lost her teeth. I was with her at the dentist's office when she was told that she was going to get her smile back, and she broke down in tears of joy. That is who the Conservatives want to attack. They want to strip Sue of the dignity of getting her teeth fixed. That is what we are fighting against today.