- Member of Parliament
- Minister of Health
- Liberal
- Ajax
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $134,982.00
- Government Page
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to talk about Bill C-64, which is an opportunity for us to move forward with pharmacare in this country. In the first order, the bill represents the best of what Canadians should expect from the House, which is different parties working together to find common ground and solutions.
I will start by thanking the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his work in what were often challenging conversations and negotiations, but which led to an exceptionally important bill that is going to do incredible good across the country. As well, I want to thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the House leader for the New Democratic Party, for his work as House leader and now as health critic. In all orders, when we are facing something as challenging as the protection of our public health system and making sure Canadians get the care they require, working in a non-partisan way to drive results is exceptionally important.
I will speak to what is at stake, say a bit about what we have been doing in health and then talk specifically to the legislation that is in front of us today.
It was a stark day for me yesterday because I had two very different kinds of conversations. One conversation was with somebody who was saying, in a roundabout way, that maybe it would not be so bad if our public health care system became private. It is important to focus on what that would mean for this country and why it is something that we should all be adamantly opposed to.
If we allow our system to become a private health care system, there would be a migration of dollars toward a private system and expertise, in which the private sector would take that which was easy and lucrative and leave that which was difficult or involved folks who did not have the means to be able to pay for those services. This would leave less money in a public system that would be dealing with the most expensive problems and the most intractable issues. Over time, we would then see more and more migration of that which was easier into the private system, which would mean that people who do not have the means could not afford the same kind of care.
In a very practical sense, that ends up in the following type of situation: I had an opportunity to be in the United States with my partner for a weekend, and we witnessed a man collapse. It was clearly a person with not a lot of means. He fell unconscious to the ground. We went to his side and called 911. When he became conscious, his first thought was not about his health or worrying about what had just happened to his physical body; his concern was how he was going to be able to afford what just happened to him. I thought about the phone call I made to 911 and whether this was what this man even wanted, because now he has to think of exorbitant health costs to get the care he needs.
Even those who do not fundamentally care about whether their fellow citizens, regardless of their financial circumstances, get the same level of care as everybody else in the country, even if we cannot compel people's morality to care about the circumstance of whether somebody in their own community gets the same level of medical care that they do, the reality is that when somebody does not go to a hospital to get checked for something that is minor, because they do not have money, then it becomes something major. We are then left with the existential question, when that person becomes so sick that they are on death's door, of whether we just let them die or whether we pay the exorbitant costs that we have allowed to accumulate through not having a system that took care of those problems in the first place.
For the prognosticators of doom about our health system, for those who push the idea that we should just allow it to deteriorate and not make the investments or say that it is too difficult, they have to be honest about the future they are painting for Canadians in this country and the type of health care system that they would be left with. It is one where only the affluent have the opportunity to get the care they need. We can imagine a world where nurses cannot afford the care and services they require, but the affluent they are serving do. I do not think that is a society we want to be in.
That is why the investments we are making in health care are so critically important. The federal government has come to the table with nearly $200 billion to invest in partnership with provincial and territorial governments over the next 10 years. In the same spirit as the legislation, the question was not asked about one's partisanship or one's jurisdiction, because I do not think Canadians are interested. They want to see answers and forward progress.
I really want to commend the health ministers across the country because, over the last 10 months, as I had an opportunity to work with them to negotiate the agreements we signed, it was a spirit of co-operation and putting the health of Canadians first. It does not matter whether it was Adriana LaGrange in Alberta, Tom Osborne in Newfoundland and Labrador, a Conservative and a Liberal, or Adrian Dix, a New Democratic health minister in B.C.; they understand we have an important job to do and that we need to focus on what unites us and how we make things better.
The results were incredibly detailed health agreements that not only put money into the system but also showed exactly how that federal money is going to be spent. Thus, Canadians can view where those dollars are going to go to improve their health system and issues such as the health workforce, where we make sure that we have the doctors and nurses Canadians need and that everybody has a relationship with a doctor in this country. In addition, this enables us to put common indicators across the country so people can see the progress their province is making.
We know what is measured is achieved, and for the first time in our health system, these agreements put common indicators across the country so we can see the progress occurring in our health system and see what those investments are doing on key indicators identified by CIHI, which is an independent agency dealing with health data.
However, in dealing with the urgency of the now, let us recognize that our health system has been enormously strained. Throughout one of the darkest periods in public health that, certainly, we have known in our lifetime, health care workers were asked to do Herculean amounts of work. They were asked to rise to an occasion and do more than I think any reasonable person could be expected to do, but they met that hour and did it. As in health systems all over the world, instead of being met with a break, they were met with even more work, with burnout, with all kinds of mental fatigue and mental health issues as a result of the pandemic, with a backlog of procedures and with a health system that was even more overwhelmed.
What was remarkable about that period of time, going back to the spirit of co-operation, is that we made extraordinary progress. This was when the health system was fully aligned in the darkest moments of the pandemic, everybody was given more agency to practise at top of scope, jurisdiction was of distant consideration and people's immediate urgent health needs were first. We are dealing with that, with these workforce agreements and the work we are doing bilaterally with provinces and territories, but it is not enough to deal with the crisis of now. We have already made such huge progress. On where we were a year ago versus where we are now, that progress is evident through our whole system, but we recognize we also have to be upstream.
That brings me to another conversation that I had yesterday. I had the opportunity to be with the member for Ottawa—Vanier at a denture clinic in Vanier. Here is another example of parliamentary co-operation, where two parties came together and recognized an essential need in this country, which is that some nine million Canadians do not have access to oral health care.
We have now seen more than 30,000 seniors, just in the first few days of this dental program, receive care for the first time. I have been able to see what that means, in many instances by going into clinics. I will talk about what I saw in that denture clinic in Vanier. A denturist was talking about a senior who had not had their dentures replaced in 40 years; they did not have the money. This senior had no teeth and used a black apparatus to crush food in their mouth. One can imagine the dignity and the spiritual change in that person when they came in and realized that, after 40 years, they were finally going to get teeth in their mouth. The denturist being able to describe that moment, the pride they had in being able to deliver that service and give that senior that dignity, was absolutely extraordinary.
I had an opportunity in my own riding, just a few days before that, in Ajax, to meet with a senior. I never had a chance to meet him before. His name is Wayne. He sometimes goes by “Moose”. He was talking about himself and his wife. He had a need for partial dentures, and he had other oral health problems, as did his wife, which they had been putting off. In terms of what it meant to him to feel seen and to be able to get those issues taken care of, the truth is that we know it is not just a matter of dignity. It is not just a question of what kind of country we want to live in. What about the cost?
I think of Wayne and his inability to pay for the medical care that he needed for oral health care. Left untreated, Wayne could very well end up in a hospital room with an unnecessary surgical procedure, placing his life at risk. Imagine the staggering cost of that.
Dental care is not about some kind of boutique political intervention. It is fundamentally about making sure that people get the preventative care they need. It is part of the overall action that we are taking as a government, not only dealing with the crisis of the now, but also casting our eyes into the future and asking how we can work together.
Clearly the Bloc Québécois members have concerns about the jurisdiction issue, which I completely understand. It is a concern for me too. However, in my opinion, this is not a question of jurisdiction. It is actually a question of co-operation. There was one question that dominated my conversations with Quebec's health minister, Christian Dubé: How can the Government of Canada and the Province of Quebec work together to improve our health care system?
There are plenty of opportunities for us to work together in a spirit of co-operation to improve our health care system. It is easy to pick quarrels, point out differences and raise the issue of jurisdiction. However, I believe that for Quebeckers, what really matters is their health and government action.
Dental care is a great example of that. In Quebec, the Minister of Heritage has done extraordinary work in her riding. Almost all the providers in her riding have signed up, meeting a lot of that misinformation that was coming from the Conservatives with true facts. The experiences of those providers have been extraordinary. That is an example of us working together.
I said to Minister Dubé in Quebec that if they want to administer the program, it is no problem. Our care is about the patients, not about the jurisdiction. Our only requirements, if a one wants to take it over, is that one has to have at least the same level of care, number one, and number two, we are not going to give more to administer the program than it costs us to administer it. If it costs one more, that is something one has to bear on one's shoulders or look internally at how one is operating one's system.
That is an example of making sure that we get the care now and that we fix the question of jurisdiction later. For somebody who has a dental emergency, for a senior who does not have teeth in their mouth, they do not care about jurisdiction. They care about care and about getting it done. That is what we are focused on.
Before I come to pharmacare, one of the other things we are doing is about school food. When I was at Heart and Stroke, I had the opportunity to lead the Ontario mission and to be the national director of children and youth. One thing that was shocking to me was that when a child has one healthy meal, it can totally change their health outcomes. It does it for a couple of reasons. First, just the act of eating fruits and vegetables and healthy food has a transformative effect on health and prevents chronic disease and illness. Second, how does one learn if one is hungry? Third, one actually gets to develop a taste for healthy food that lasts one's entire life. Therefore, this is an extraordinary investment that is going to make a massive difference.
We are also taking action on marketing to kids with front-of-pack labelling and taking action with the $500-million fund to develop capacity for mental health services on the ground in communities across the country. I could go on and on, but I only have a short period of time to talk about the thing that we are here to talk about. I see the member for Vancouver Kingsway, and I want to thank him for this.
When we talk about contraceptives, it is incredibly frustrating to me that, over the last number of days, we have seen a march and a protest here to try to take away women's rights and take away their right to choose. We have seen over 80 Conservative members, I believe is the number, who have been endorsed because of their belief that they should take away a woman's right to choose, and that is fine. I am pro-choice, and there are members who are not.
However, what I do not understand is if someone is against a woman's right to make a choice about her own body, how can they also be against giving her contraception? What choice is she left with? Let us look at that very specifically. If a woman today is in need of contraception and does not have the money for it, what are they supposed to do? Maybe they can find the money for oral contraception, but it has a failure rate of 9%. An IUD has a failure rate of 0.2%, but it costs $500 up front. For the women who do not have the money to pay for it up front, they are left with a less effective tool to be able to have control over their sexual and reproductive health.
How, in the one order, can we say to a woman that they are not allowed to choose or make a choice for their body, but in the other order, say that we are not going to help them get contraception to be able to make a choice about their body that way either? In other words, they get no choice. What conversation is being had about sexual health? If someone is against giving contraception to women and against them having a choice over their body, then they would at least talk about sexual health.
For women, it is extremely important to know that their body is something that they should always have autonomy over. Sex is something that should feel empowering and should make them feel like themselves. It is something they should never be coerced or pressured into. It is something that they should never feel ashamed of. It is something that should feel pleasurable.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Mark Holland: There are members laughing.
Madam Speaker, imagine that? As health minister, I cannot talk about whether or not sex is pleasurable. Do members? Do members know how much sex people have in this country?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Mark Holland: Madam Speaker, they are laughing again, and that is so juvenile.
Guess what: In this country, or in any country, people have sex. How often does that result in a baby? Less than 0.1% of the time. Most of the sex people are going to have in their lives is for pleasure. Why is it important to be able to say that sex is pleasurable? The reason is when someone thinks that their body is there to serve somebody else, rather than to serve themselves and their pleasure, then they are going to be more likely to accept abuse, more likely to accept manipulation and more likely to be hurt.
I will say this lesson hit home for me very hard in my life when I was young. In my life, I was faced with deep sexual violence that happened when I was a kid. My family did not talk about sex. The result of that was me being afraid of my sexuality and of sex, and linking sexual violence to somehow being part of sex. I did not understand what sex was, and I was deeply confused. That is something that caused me an enormous amount of damage.
We know that sexual identity issues are a leading cause for teen suicide. Many young people struggle with many questions: What do I do? Do I please this person? Do I please myself? Is it okay to please myself? What do I want? It is okay to be ourselves, and we need to be able to say that in this country. It is okay to have autonomy over one's body.
Again, I will ask the question: If someone is against contraception and against choice, in terms of abortion, then how come one cannot talk about female sexuality? Is it because they do not want women to have any choice at all? That is an important question.
Therefore, making sure that women have access to the contraceptive medicine they need is absolutely essential to women having autonomy and control over their own bodies. It is, frankly, about making sure that they are not used, manipulated or have a negative experience with that.
Lastly, I will talk briefly, because I know I am pretty much out of time, about diabetes. Diabetes medication is so essential because if diabetes patients do not have access to the medication they need, and far too many Canadians do not have the dollars for their medicine, it means they are going to be much more likely to experience heart disease, kidney failure, blindness or limb amputation. It is yet another example, like contraception, where the money we would to spend to make sure that people get medication would actually save the health system more than it costs by avoiding all kinds of disastrous health outcomes. It is not just a matter of social justice or preventative health, but in this instance, it would bring huge savings to our health system.
Why are Conservatives against it? They say that it is fantasy. Then, let me try to negotiate it. When I talk to the provincial health ministers across the country, they are ready to act. If Conservatives are against it because they think the system is too expensive, then what is their alternative? How would people get their medication? They do not say that. If it is just that they are against the idea that people should get the medicine they need, then they should have the honesty to say that is their reason. Then, we can have a debate about the merits of the type of country we live in and whether or not those medications are available for the people who need them.
3475 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 2:40:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, replacing science with slogans and replacing research and evidence with talking points will not fix the problem. There is not a person in the House who is not ripped apart when we watch somebody lose a loved one to this crisis, but to meet it with partisanship, to meet it with pretend solutions and to do things that have failed in other jurisdictions is a disgrace for those who have lost family members.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:45:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the representations made by the member are inaccurate, and I would invite people to read the documents, which have been fully redacted.
However, this is the contrast with a party that is focused on partisanship and differences. The member opposite talked about working with another party and what that might accomplish. What about dental care? When we focused on co-operation, we were able to get dental care for this country. We were able to make sure that nine million Canadians, including three million seniors, will have access to dental care. They are voting against that. They are against that. Are they against pharmacare? Are they against the other fruits of co-operation that come from—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:42:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question on numerous occasions, but let me address the proposition at the start of that question when the member said we are working together with another political party. He does not want to do that, and I get it. He is used to making partisan points and not reaching across the aisle to collaborate.
What happens when we collaborate and work together? We get national pharmacare. We get the ability to say to those who have diabetes that we have their backs and they would have medication. We get to say to women that we are going to give them real freedom, freedom over their sexuality and freedom over their reproductive rights. That is what happens when members stop focusing on partisan politics and start focusing on results.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:24:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is the exact opposite of a cover-up. It was the current government that created the process that released the documents. Conservatives actually refused to participate in the process.
The second thing I will say with respect to our national security interests is that it is essential, when we are dealing with national security, to recognize two things: that the party opposite is saying it would support partisan interference into the Public Health Agency of Canada, and that if it were in government, it would see that political interference into the process as acceptable.
No, it is done at arm's length, and rightfully so. It is the Public Health Agency of Canada that identified these Canadian citizens, these eminent scientists, who were lying, and took action.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:23:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, some will attempt to turn national security concerns into partisan games. That is unfortunate.
Let me just give an example. The exchange concerning Ebola in 2019 was done in the context of trying to work with China and other countries on finding solutions to Ebola, which exists in so many different parts of the world. At that moment in time, in 2019, the relationship with China was in a different place. The information that was shared was through legitimate channels. It has nothing to do with this issue. It was absolutely known and handled with complete control.
I think it is very important to not mis-characterize national security for partisan interests.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 2:47:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have already answered these questions. The Conservative Party is obviously bringing up a situation that happened years ago for partisan reasons. I have already answered the question.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 11:43:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a peppering of partisan comments here. I would just say that this is a deeply serious issue about crimes that every single one of us were impacted by.
As I said earlier, this is a decision that was made by Correctional Service Canada and we have long made sure throughout the history of our country, that it operates independently of the actions of politics. We have been very careful to ensure that politics is not inserted in that process.
If we want to have a conversation about the outrage we feel about this crime—
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 11:42:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservative partisan interest in disliking the minister has been well-established, and they continue to repeat that.
That is a separate conversation from the conversation we need to have about this situation, which is greatly upsetting to everyone. A decision was made, independent of government, by Correctional Service Canada to make a transfer effective, and that is something that we are deeply concerned about. That is why there is a review. In two weeks' time, Correctional Service Canada could come back with its decision. I fundamentally reject the premise that the approach the member is talking about would work. It has failed everywhere in the world.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:35:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to say that I am talking about March of 2020. At that moment in time, the whips and the House leaders for the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc all joined together to have a conversation about how we were going to do the business of this country. I thought that maybe for a moment we could put the partisan swords down and talk about what we did in the pandemic and how we came together in that dark moment, because I think it was a proud moment for Parliament. It was a moment when we set aside our differences, saw the challenge that was in front of this country, understood the need to be able to do our work as Parliament, and envisioned a way of doing that business totally differently. I am surprised at the member opposite; because he is a long-standing member, he would remember that his party absolutely agreed at that point in time that we had to work at a distance, that it was impossible to be in the chamber, and that it was not safe, unfortunately, to be in public spaces.
What ensued thereafter was a debate; there were disagreements, and there continue to be some disagreements, about the use of these provisions, and I will speak to that. However, I think it is important that the work that was done was done on the basis of unanimity and in collaboration, to find a way through that dark hour. That it is why I started my comments by rooting them in this fact. That is why I thank all parties for the work they did in that difficult moment. I think it is an important starting point, and it is important for us to remember that the provisions we are talking about today were born from that process of co-operation.
I would like to speak about a couple of the points that may have prompted the member to rise on his point of order. There are a number of points that have been made in criticism of the hybrid system, so I am going to start with those. Then I am going to talk about many of the advantages I feel it does confer.
One of the arguments made is that members of Parliament will not show up, that we are going to see Ottawa be empty. Of course, we have had these provisions for almost three years, and at the height of the public health emergency, that was true; it was impossible for members of Parliament to show up, but thereafter, we have seen the House populated as it always has been. We recognize in this place that every member is honourable, and hon. members want to be here. They want to do the work of this country, and they have done it. The hybrid provisions allow for greater flexibility, which I will speak to, but the work of Parliament has continued. Committees have met. The House has met. The work of Parliament has been conducted, and it has been conducted very well, I might add.
There are a few issues around interpretation. It is essential that the debates are held here in both official languages, and the quality of interpretation is very important.
In committee, with or without the hybrid system, interpretation is necessary. For the witnesses who appear in committee, access to the interpretation service is essential. That is why the issue of interpretation is important with or without the hybrid system. Interpretation is now available remotely, outside the House, and it is very important that we continue to ensure the quality of interpretation and the health of the interpreters.
With respect to holding the government to account, over the last three years, I do not think we could have imagined a time that has been more challenged and a country that has been seeing the rise of very unfortunate trends in the social media space that are incredibly aggressive and, sadly, sometimes amplified by the opposition, particularly by the Conservatives. We have had very vigorous debate, and that debate is appropriate. The ability of the opposition parties has been in no way curtailed by the use of hybrid provisions. Accountability has been evident and in full force. Not much has changed with the use of the hybrid system, in terms of what was lost, but I think we need to take a moment to think about what was gained and what was changed for this place in the experience we have had over these last three years. I will start, frankly, with my own errors, in looking back over my career.
I was elected nearly 20 years ago, as next year it will have been 20 years since I was given the opportunity to take my seat in Parliament for the first time. I came a bit earlier than I might have intended. When I was 29, a new riding was created in my community. It was always my dream to serve my community in Parliament; it was a dream I had held since I was 12 years old. This has been a great passion in my life. I believed I could hold those responsibilities and the responsibilities of being a father and the responsibilities of my family, and hold them intact and find balance. There are a lot of reasons why I did not get that right and that I allowed too much of my life to be taken over by this job and the priorities of it.
This is not a job in a normal sense; it is an incredible calling and privilege. We meet all the people in our constituencies and we want to serve them well. We hear wrongs that are happening in the country and we want to stand up for them. However, without any of the provisions that exist in the hybrid system, there were many moments that were extremely important in the life of my family for which I was not able to be there, which I sincerely regret. I want to make sure we do not do that again and that, in the key and most important moments in members' lives, they are able to be there for their families, for the people they love and for their friends, because those moments are essential. I will speak to that in a number of different ways, but we have to remember the most important reason that is true, which is that this is the House of common people. We are supposed to understand common people, and common people spend time with their families. Common people make space for important life events for their families. Common people take jobs that respect their families and the obligations towards their families, and it is high time that Parliament were a place that respects those values.
I want us to think not just about the justice that is done to a family. Let us think also about what happens when we attend that really important moment in our family's life or in the life of somebody who is very close to us. First, when we get an opportunity to be at the graduation of a child, or when we get an opportunity to be at the bedside of somebody we love, it changes how we see issues. When we get to be there in those really critical moments, it reminds us of why we do the job, what we care about, and, frankly, how the people facing those issues are also feeling. It is just as important to have time away from the work we do as it is to be in the work we do, so we can get the context and we can remember what we are debating. So often it is said that we in Ottawa live in a bubble. If we do not have the opportunity to connect and to be with those whom we love, and be in the real world, then it is no wonder we are in a bubble.
It also reminds us of what is real and important, and I am sure we will all have had this experience. It is one of the reasons that weeks in the constituency are so important. When I take a moment to step out of this place and the debates we are having, sometimes debates that I think are really big and important, I get home to friends and family and they say, “What are you talking about? That is not on our minds. You are completely missing it.” Sometimes there is something small that we may not be seeing here or feeling in the same kind of way, but when we go home to our constituencies and are with our friends and family, they remind us how important it is.
However, there are two other things that I think are even more important than all of that. One is energy. Members can see I have a lot of vigour today. That vigour comes from a very direct place; it comes from having my needs met. Although on the weekend I had a lot of events, I also took really important time with people I love. That reinforces me. It changes the person who I am here.
This leads me to my last point about spending time in those key moments, which is that when someone has the opportunity to be there in moments that are really important and regenerative to them, they make better decisions. All the worst decisions I have ever made in my life, and I have made some bad choices, have come from a place of deprivation, from not taking care of my needs. They have come from extending myself too far and from losing that sense of what the priorities are. Therefore, taking care of those things is no minor thing.
Let us be really honest. The problem we have today in Parliament is not that MPs are taking too much time off or are going away to relax and rest. I was whip for over three years. I can tell members that this is not reflective of the life of a member of Parliament. The life of somebody who decides to serve, as every person in the House or any person who has served and is listening to this would know to be true, is one of tremendous service and sacrifice.
When we are not here serving in the House, we are asked to be in a committee. When we are not in a committee, we are asked to be at a reception or a meeting with stakeholders, or we are returning constituent calls. When we get to our ridings, we are asked to serve on behalf of our constituents at events and to represent them, meet them, hear their issues, hear the things that are bothering them and be there for their cases.
We are asked to do things for our party: to raise money, organize and make sure we are ready for the next election, that our riding associations are well taken care of and that we have called all of the volunteers and people who have been helping out at community events and stakeholder events. Heck, when we go into Shoppers Drug Mart sick at midnight, we are talking about an immigration case. That is the life of a member of Parliament. That is not a Liberal member of Parliament. That is not a Conservative member of Parliament. That is every member of Parliament.
There is always somebody somewhere, I suppose, who is not doing what their job is, but we have democracy and votes to sort that out. In my experience, they do a very effective job. However, sitting in here and pretending that hybrid is somehow shirking our responsibilities or that members of Parliament are not rising to the responsibility of serving their communities is putting a wilful blindfold over one's eyes and missing the essential work that every member is doing in the House.
I would submit that we have the opposite problem. Hybrid is an opportunity to make a cultural statement, one that I wish, in retrospect, was made to me when I entered the House in 2004. It was not to work harder. My dear God, I had no time in my calendar for anything else. It was to say no. It was to learn to create boundaries and space and make sure we were there for the most important moments in our lives.
When it all washes away, this opportunity to serve comes down to this: a name printed on a paper card that could be changed in a second. That is it. Somebody is going to say it is a prop. That is fair. That is my name. It is on a piece of paper. I can read it—
An hon. member: Prop.
2167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 2:27:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what we have seen is that members of the party opposite, which once recognized David Johnston not only as an outstanding Canadian but also as somebody worthy of being the Governor General of this country, appointed under Stephen Harper, now, because his report does not conform to the party's politics and does not conform to its political interests, are attacking and maligning his character. This is part of a pattern of the party opposite. It is more interested in politics. It is more interested in making partisan points than it is in the facts on the ground.
There is not a member of the House who does not stand strongly and firmly in support of democracy and against those—
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 2:38:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what we see day in and day out, as the world reels from the effects of the pandemic, and while we deal with the global effects of inflation, where Canada is doing better than the G7 average and the G20 average—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, they can yell across the way as much as they want. The difference is that we have a finance minister who is trying to protect and ensure that children get dental care. We have an opportunity when we are dealing with child care.
What they are talking about is cutting these programs. Therefore, they can attack and be partisan, as that is what they do, but underneath it is about cuts. It is about not being there, and it is misrepresenting world events.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/23 11:19:29 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Prime Minister did go on vacation at Christmas with his family to a friend's house.
The obsession of members opposite with the Prime Minister personally is, of course, driven by a partisan interest, but there are a great number of things in front of the House that have an enormous impact on Canadians' day-to-day lives, whether it is the dental care plan, or the investments we are making in housing and lifting people out of homelessness. There are many better issues to be focusing on.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 2:37:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what has been said time and time again in the House is that the Prime Minister has not had a connection, direct or indirect, with the foundation for more than 10 years. It is an independent foundation that is responsible for giving scholarships to young leaders, who are going to have tremendous futures in our country. If members have questions about that organization that gives those scholarships, they should ask the foundation directly.
However, what we have seen from the testimony is that whether it is attacking the CBC or independent organizations, those members have no care for whom they attack with their partisan attacks or what damages it does. They are just seeking partisan—
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 3:04:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I have said to this House on many occasions, the member is right: The Prime Minister took a vacation with his family over Christmas. He did so, staying at a friend's house. Is the member asserting that the Prime Minister should not be able to take a vacation with his family at Christmas, or is the member asserting that if he does so he does not have security, which was the vast preponderance of the cost? It seems that the Conservatives want to torque and play partisan games with a family vacation that the Prime Minister took. That is inappropriate.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/23 2:54:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask the member opposite, whether it is Russia or China, our collective response to that threat on our democracy, the democracy that the member opposite has tried to defend and protect her whole life, the democracy that I have worked to try to defend and protect my whole life, how do we work together to counter that.
Instead of trying to score partisan political points, or find ways to extract partisan advantage or imply somehow that anybody is advantaged by autocrats who attempt to destroy democracy, we need to stand shoulder to shoulder, side by side against it.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/23 2:44:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the member across the aisle is looking for a conspiracy theory. It is obvious that he is trying to create a connection that is not there.
The foundation in question is independent. The Prime Minister had no direct or indirect relationship with the foundation. The foundation is responsible for scholarships. If the member opposite wants to engage in partisan attacks against an independent organization, I believe that is irresponsible.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/23 2:55:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, of course the member would be aware that it was not in the Prime Minister's office, but in the building, and that many things happen in his building and in everybody's buildings. I do not know if the member is aware of everything that happens in his office building. These were meetings with public servants, which had nothing to do with the Prime Minister.
The thing that I find disturbing is that they keep attacking a foundation when we have rules in this country, which are the strongest in the world, to protect the independence of our charities. The job of the foundation, which is the charity the Conservatives are attacking, is to give scholarships to students so they can be our future leaders. The Conservatives do not care whom or what they attack. Their partisan games continue.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/24/23 2:26:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the member opposite desperately wants to create a link between the Trudeau Foundation and the Prime Minister.
There is no link. There has been no direct or indirect link between the foundation and the Prime Minister for over 10 years. That is clear.
Unfortunately, the leader of the official opposition cares more about playing partisan games and sowing division than he does about the facts.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/24/23 2:23:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the meeting that took place was between public servants in a government building. It was not with the Prime Minister.
However, I could understand that the Leader of the Opposition, as usual, is looking to swing a wide stick and does not seem to care what he hits. There is a constant array of attacks and mis-characterization of information. His interest again and again is to disrupt and be partisan rather than provide productive solutions to the issues that face this country right now.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
