Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1  Mr. Speaker, all the major Quebec trade unions—the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec—have said that the pharmacare bill the NDP forced the government to introduce in the House is worthwhile and important.

Pharmacare Act  Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I completely agree with my colleague from Kitchener Centre. Let the member for Winnipeg Centre speak, and hopefully the Conservatives will not provoke any more interruptions.

Pharmacare Act  Mr. Speaker, I am both shocked and saddened by the member's speech. I am shocked because she mentioned the Conservative government. I lived through, as Canadians did, the shockingly bad years of the Harper regime, with the record deficits each and every year, the bad financial management, the scandals, one after another, and the fact that they gave $30 billion a year in the infamous Harper tax-saving treaties to the wealthy, $300 billion over the course of a dismal decade.

Pharmacare Act  Madam Speaker, I like my colleague a lot, but I find it hard to accept that the Bloc Québécois is refusing to listen to the people in Quebec who are in favour of this bill. The Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, or CSQ, and the Fédération des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec welcome the introduction of this bill.

Pharmacare Act  Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we generally do not interrupt speeches, so I would hope that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley could start from the top.

Pharmacare Act  Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives should have stood up and should have the guts to actually defend the unbelievably negative things that they have tried to do around pharmacare. My question to my colleague is very simple. When 17,000 of their constituents need access to diabetes medication and 25,000 need access to their reproductive health prescriptions, which are part of this bill, why are Conservatives blocking the ability of Canadians to access these medications?

Pharmacare Act  Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP, was the leader in actually bringing the bill to bear, with pharmacare being so vitally important for so many Canadians. He basically said, last week, that the Conservatives had up until noon today to remove their blocking amendment.

Foreign Political Interference, Violence or Intimidation  Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, (a) the amendment to the motion at second reading for Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, in the name of the MP for Cumberland—Colchester, be deemed withdrawn, and (b) Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

Foreign Political Interference, Violence or Intimidation  Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, the Conservatives said no to the unanimous consent motion?

Foreign Political Interference, Violence or Intimidation  Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, the NDP will support Motion No. 112, which seeks to prevent political interference, violence and intimidation on Canadian soil. I would like to thank the member for Surrey—Newton for moving this motion in the House. This is a very concerning issue for us.

Foreign Political Interference, Violence or Intimidation  Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Surrey—Newton for bringing forward this important motion. As he mentioned, it has the support of all the recognized parties in the House. It has been seconded by members of Parliament from each of the parties. This is an important initiative.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act  Mr. Speaker, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is one of the best MPs in the House. He does a tremendous amount of work and is always very productive. We listen carefully when he asks questions. Honestly, I do not have an answer. Why are the Conservatives saying that this bill is important while doing everything they can to block it, even though their filibuster costs $70,000 for every hour of useless debate?

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act  Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. It is not that they want to spend hours and hours debating that one sentence and whether we remove it, when it has absolutely no impact on the legislation or on the public complaints commission, but that they want to spend. They want to waste.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act  Mr. Speaker, they have wasted $70,000, so far, on this meaningless debate and delay tactic. I think Canadians would say to get on with the public complaints and review commission. Why did they not accept the UC that I moved prior to question period, which would actually allow us to move to third reading debate on this bill?

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act  Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague for his French question a little while ago. I was quite impressed with that. His French is coming along well. The reality is that there is no censorship, when one is paying $70,000, to debate deleting one line that has absolutely no impact on the bill.