Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member for Winnipeg Centre .
Since this is my first speech, I obviously want to begin by thanking the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for once again placing their trust in me as I begin my fifth term as an NDP member here in the House of Commons. Once again, I will do whatever it takes to represent and honour them. I want to be able to defend their interests and priorities. I also want to thank my entire election team. I am thinking of all the people who helped ensure that there were telephone operators, that there were volunteers on the ground, that calls were made and that people went door to door. I want to sincerely thank everyone who made this new victory possible.
Like many others here, I would also like to thank my family, especially my partner, Lisa Djevarhirdjian, with whom I have been sharing my life for a little over 15 years now. She is always by my side, always solidly supporting me in my political action. I thank Lisa very much. I give a shout-out to our youngest, Sevan, who was 10 months old when I was first sent to the House. This month, he will be 15 years old. For the first time in his life, he seemed to understand what was going on during an election campaign. It was very funny, because he was extremely afraid that I would lose. He put a lot of pressure on me to go to work. When he saw me at home in the late afternoon, when he came back from school, he would send me outside, telling me to knock on doors and make calls; there was no way I was going to lose, I had to win this election. I thank Sevan for that motivation.
I would like to come back to the Speech from the Throne. I will say that I found it rather peculiar that the monarch of another country was brought in to send a message to President Trump about Canada's sovereignty. The monarchy itself is a matter that could be discussed. As members of the New Democratic Party, we are committed to democratic values. Since the monarchy is not a democratic institution, I do not believe that it is all that legitimate.
What is in the throne speech itself? It has some good things in it, but it is missing a few things. The good things are nice because they highlight NDP achievements in the last Parliament. As progressives, we have worked to improve people's lives. I would like to remind members that, had the NDP not forced the Liberal government to move forward with the dental care program, it would never have materialized. Every other time the NDP proposed a dental care program for the middle class and the less fortunate, the Liberals voted against it. This time, the NDP forced the Liberals to do it because they needed support in the House. That was useful. Now the Liberals are bragging about it. They think it was a good idea, but the truth is, the program exists because of the NDP's work. Folks in Montreal and Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie talked to me about it during the election campaign. Some told me that they had not been to the dentist for 10 or 12 years and that, thanks to my work, thanks to the work we did in Parliament, they can now go to the dentist and and it is paid for. People are saving a substantial amount of money. One woman told me that, when she went to the dentist, her bill was $1,150 and she paid only $57 out of pocket. We helped her save over $1,000. That is a pretty big deal. I think this is one of the NDP's most significant achievements, and it has already helped more than 530,000 Quebeckers. Thanks to us, people have had all or part of their dental work paid for. I think that is a wonderful legacy. We will keep fighting to ensure that people have access to more health care services. Incidentally, health care was barely mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. That is one of the big things they left out.
The throne speech included another of the NDP's achievements. Obviously, I am referring to the progress in terms of the universal public pharmacare program. That is near to our heart. It is also near to the heart of Quebec's civil society, particularly Quebec's union movement. The FTQ, CSN and CSQ have been demanding change for years, since Quebec's current public-private hybrid system has been unable to stabilize prescription drug prices. Prescription drug prices in Canada are among the highest in the world. It is always better to have a hybrid system than no system at all. Some people in English Canada have to go without their medications because they cannot pay for them, so they become even sicker, end up in the hospital, and fill up the emergency rooms. That is not good for anyone.
Canada is the only country that has a universal public health care but no universal public pharmacare. It is as if we had only one leg to stand on and were unable to walk. The NDP will continue to pressure the government to implement a universal public pharmacare program. The Union des consommateurs du Québec is demanding the same, because it understands how important it is for people's lives, for providing care and avoiding illness.
We have made progress with contraceptives and the price of diabetes medications. There are already agreements with the governments of British Columbia and Manitoba. I think there is also a letter of agreement with Prince Edward Island. We hope that Quebec will join in, because it would be a shame for Quebeckers not to have access to medications paid for by the federal government after negotiations with Quebec. I am thinking, for example, about people with diabetes.
That is something that should be implemented everywhere, but it must be negotiated between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments, who manage their own pharmacare programs. Prescription drugs are too expensive, and every study, in particular the Hoskins report, has shown that a universal public pharmacare program is the best way of controlling prescription drug prices.
We will now go over what was not mentioned in the throne speech.
Though it talks about the housing crisis, it never says a word about non-profit housing, also called non-market housing. That is the one solution that will give people access to truly affordable housing. We have to be careful when we use the word “affordable”. What exactly does it mean? In recent years, we have seen that some definitions of “affordable”, like the one used by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, do not match up with what is truly affordable in the real world.
The people we meet on the street and on the ground tell us that they love Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and want to stay in the borough, but they cannot afford housing there anymore. That is why we need to build social housing, co-operative housing, community housing and student housing. If we keep on building nothing but condos at $2 million each, we will never get there. That is not the way to solve the housing crisis.
We have to move away from a purely commercial mindset. Yes, housing can be a profit-generating investment or even a nest egg. That makes sense. However, it is not right that 97% of the housing stock is used in that way. The proportion of non-market, non-profit housing has to be increased. There are community groups willing to make that happen. The government needs to facilitate stable, long-term funding. That is crucial for having housing prices that are based on a family's ability to pay rather than the mindset of an investor who wants to make a profit and maximize their returns.
Three or four per cent of our housing stock is non-market or non-profit. In Scandinavian countries in Europe, that proportion is 10%, 15%, or 20%. We will never reach 50%, but if the government increases the proportion of non-market or non-profit housing, that will also help the market's private sector. It will help stabilize prices, and it will prevent real estate speculation and stop the sector from heating up, two things that make it impossible for people to afford a house, an apartment or rent. That solution is not in the Speech from the Throne.
There is also nothing about workers. The Liberals have been telling us for 10 years that employment insurance needs major reform, but there is no mention of EI in the throne speech. There is talk of a tariff war and perhaps a looming recession, but, once again, the majority of workers who lose their jobs do not have access to EI. It is ludicrous. This issue needs to be addressed, but there was nothing about it in the throne speech. As New Democrats, we will continue to fight for real EI reform.
We will also support the implementation of promising and meaningful projects. For example, there was no mention in the throne speech of high-speed rail, even though it had been announced. It is a truly exciting project that meets the needs of Canadians. We have long been saying that Canada should have high-speed rail. We are talking about projects of national interest or national scope. Why, then, is this public transit project, high-speed rail, not in the throne speech? There are also other projects that could be implemented but that do not meet our commitments in terms of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
Thus, I have mixed feelings about this throne speech, which highlights some of the good things the NDP has done but fails to address a number of issues, especially for workers.