Johns pushes for fair federal ferry funding for British Columbia, mental health and addictions care covered under the Canada Health Act, an excess profit tax on oil and gas companies he says are posting record profits, and keeping federal security contracts with the Commissionaires, which employ veterans. He often keeps his own point going instead of answering what was asked, saying “the opposition’s role is to hold government to account and also to be propositional.” He backs his arguments with figures, from per-capita ferry subsidies to the cost of mental illness.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Average grade
B+
The average grade of 80 analysed statements. 4 more were analysed but were too short to grade.
84 / 100 over 80 statements
Signal84 / 100
Relevance72 / 100
Respect100 / 100
Clarity96 / 100
Loses points more than most for Thanks and tributes.1.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×1.9Greetings and pleasantries.1.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×1.8Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.1.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×1.6Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean →A story that illustrates instead of making a point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean →
Averaged over the 80 of 84 statements graded so far.
“Seniors and veterans are losing their dental coverage because the renewal deadline was confusing. The government must extend the deadline and fix this problem so people do not lose their care.”
“Mr. Speaker, I truly hope the Liberals will address these issues. I have another emerging issue that I want to raise. My office has been inundated with calls from seniors, retirees, veterans and pensioners who are confused, anxious and afraid of losing the Canadian dental care plan coverage because of yesterday’s June 1 renewal deadline. Many applied honestly, were approved and received care but are now being told their eligibility is under review. Others missed the deadline because of unclear communication, delayed notices or confusion and now must reapply, risking a gap in coverage. The government needs to understand the anxiety that this has caused. Requiring renewal creates unnecessary barriers, especially for seniors and vulnerable people navigating government systems. The renewal deadline must be extended. No Canadian should lose dental coverage because of administrative confusion. The government must provide clarity and ensure no one is left without the care they depend on. Will the government fix this?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I truly hope the Liberals will address these issues. I have another emerging issue that I want to raise. My office has been inundated with calls from seniors, retirees, veterans and pensioners who are confused, anxious and afraid of losing the Canadian dental care plan coverage because of yesterday’s June 1 renewal deadline. Many applied honestly, were approved and received care but are now being told their eligibility is under review. Others missed the deadline because of unclear communication, delayed notices or confusion and now must reapply, risking a gap in coverage. The government needs to understand the anxiety that this has caused. Requiring renewal creates unnecessary barriers, especially for seniors and vulnerable people navigating government systems. The renewal deadline must be extended. No Canadian should lose dental coverage because of administrative confusion. The government must provide clarity and ensure no one is left without the care they depend on. Will the government fix this?
“Many seniors and veterans were approved for the national dental plan, but the government is now telling them they might lose it because of old tax forms. I want the government to keep their coverage active while they are being reviewed, give them clear answers, and make sure people who applied honestly do not lose their dental care.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dental care plan is one of the most significant expansions of public health care in a generation. For too long, millions of Canadians went without dental care because they could not afford it. They delayed treatment, lived with pain and watched manageable dental problems become serious health issues because the cost was out of reach. The New Democrats fought to make this program a reality because access to health care should never depend on the size of a person’s paycheque, pension cheque or bank account. Today, millions of Canadians have access to dental care because of the Canadian dental care plan. This is a success worth protecting. It is why I rise tonight to raise a serious and growing concern. My office has been contacted by Canadians who have applied in good faith, were approved, received care and renewed their coverage as instructed. Many believed everything was in order, only to receive letters saying their eligibility was now under review or they may no longer qualify. Many affected are retirees, former union members, veterans and pensioners who made decisions about dental coverage through their unions or employers years ago, sometimes decades, based on the rules that existed at the time. Some were told that if they opted out of their dental coverage, they could never rejoin. When the Canadian dental care plan became available, they applied honestly because they believed they did not have access to dental coverage. The government reviewed their applications and approved them. Now they are being told that information on a T4 or T4A tax slip suggests they may have had access after all. Susan from Errington believed she qualified because she had opted out of her pension dental plan before December 11, 2023, and could not re-enroll. She has documentation supporting her position but no clear timeline for a decision. Ian from Parksville left his former employer decades ago. He declined dental coverage because the premiums were nearly equal to the pension benefits he receives. He was told he could never rejoin. Now he fears being asked to repay benefits he received in good faith. Allan from Coombs, a retired veteran, opted out of dental coverage in the 1990s because he could not afford the premiums. He was told he could not rejoin. Now he is caught in an eligibility review because rules appear to be changing decades later. Joyce from Lasqueti Island had not seen a dentist in eight years because she could not afford private coverage. The plan finally gave her access to care. Now she worries that coverage may be taken away. These constituents are not alone. We know people across Canada do not know whether they will lose their coverage, whether they can renew, whether documents have been received or whether they will be asked to repay benefits already approved by the Liberal government. Many cannot even speak directly to the officials reviewing their cases. They are directed from one department to another with no clear timeline for a decision. Even members of Parliament have limited ability to obtain updates. This is not simply a question of paperwork. It is a question of access to health care. Will the government maintain coverage and protect renewal eligibility while reviews are under way? Will it establish clear service guidelines and standards, provide applicants and MPs with a dedicated point of contact, and ensure that Canadians who acted honestly and in good faith are not denied dental care because of gaps between government systems and the reality of their circumstances? The Canadian dental care plan is improving lives. We must not allow bureaucracy, confusion and administrative barriers to undermine that promise.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dental care plan is one of the most significant expansions of public health care in a generation. For too long, millions of Canadians went without dental care because they could not afford it. They delayed treatment, lived with pain and watched manageable dental problems become serious health issues because the cost was out of reach. The New Democrats fought to make this program a reality because access to health care should never depend on the size of a person’s paycheque, pension cheque or bank account. Today, millions of Canadians have access to dental care because of the Canadian dental care plan. This is a success worth protecting. It is why I rise tonight to raise a serious and growing concern. My office has been contacted by Canadians who have applied in good faith, were approved, received care and renewed their coverage as instructed. Many believed everything was in order, only to receive letters saying their eligibility was now under review or they may no longer qualify. Many affected are retirees, former union members, veterans and pensioners who made decisions about dental coverage through their unions or employers years ago, sometimes decades, based on the rules that existed at the time. Some were told that if they opted out of their dental coverage, they could never rejoin. When the Canadian dental care plan became available, they applied honestly because they believed they did not have access to dental coverage. The government reviewed their applications and approved them. Now they are being told that information on a T4 or T4A tax slip suggests they may have had access after all. Susan from Errington believed she qualified because she had opted out of her pension dental plan before December 11, 2023, and could not re-enroll. She has documentation supporting her position but no clear timeline for a decision. Ian from Parksville left his former employer decades ago. He declined dental coverage because the premiums were nearly equal to the pension benefits he receives. He was told he could never rejoin. Now he fears being asked to repay benefits he received in good faith. Allan from Coombs, a retired veteran, opted out of dental coverage in the 1990s because he could not afford the premiums. He was told he could not rejoin. Now he is caught in an eligibility review because rules appear to be changing decades later. Joyce from Lasqueti Island had not seen a dentist in eight years because she could not afford private coverage. The plan finally gave her access to care. Now she worries that coverage may be taken away. These constituents are not alone. We know people across Canada do not know whether they will lose their coverage, whether they can renew, whether documents have been received or whether they will be asked to repay benefits already approved by the Liberal government. Many cannot even speak directly to the officials reviewing their cases. They are directed from one department to another with no clear timeline for a decision. Even members of Parliament have limited ability to obtain updates. This is not simply a question of paperwork. It is a question of access to health care. Will the government maintain coverage and protect renewal eligibility while reviews are under way? Will it establish clear service guidelines and standards, provide applicants and MPs with a dedicated point of contact, and ensure that Canadians who acted honestly and in good faith are not denied dental care because of gaps between government systems and the reality of their circumstances? The Canadian dental care plan is improving lives. We must not allow bureaucracy, confusion and administrative barriers to undermine that promise.
“People in Alberta do not have a public plan to cover diabetes medicine or birth control. I want my colleague to tell me if he blames the Premier of Alberta or the Prime Minister for that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague the member for Calgary Centre, despite our differences. I also have respect for my colleague the member for Calgary Confederation, who on May 27, 2025, in the House said, “We will ensure the future sustainability of programs that have already saved families thousands of dollars a year. This includes child care and pharmacare.” I am going to talk about pharmacare, because right now in Alberta there is not a pharmacare plan, something we fought really hard for as New Democrats. Does my colleague think that people in Alberta’s not having diabetes medicine or birth control is the responsibility, or blame, of his premier, Danielle Smith, or is it the Prime Minister’s fault?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague the member for Calgary Centre, despite our differences. I also have respect for my colleague the member for Calgary Confederation, who on May 27, 2025, in the House said, “We will ensure the future sustainability of programs that have already saved families thousands of dollars a year. This includes child care and pharmacare.” I am going to talk about pharmacare, because right now in Alberta there is not a pharmacare plan, something we fought really hard for as New Democrats. Does my colleague think that people in Alberta’s not having diabetes medicine or birth control is the responsibility, or blame, of his premier, Danielle Smith, or is it the Prime Minister’s fault?
“Employment insurance does not work for people with part-time, contract, or gig jobs, even though they pay into it. Food bank use is at record levels. I want to know if the Conservatives agree that we need to fix employment insurance so these workers can get the benefits they pay for.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague talked about food banks, because Food Banks Canada is here on the Hill today. Food Banks Canada made it clear, and actually warned us, that our employment insurance system no longer reflects the reality of work in Canada. This is impacting people. More Canadians are working multiple part-time jobs, contract positions and gig work. Yet, they are paying into a system that often denies them support when they need it most. It highlighted that while food bank use continues to reach record levels and families struggle with the rising cost of living, millions of workers are being left behind by an outdated EI system designed for a workplace that no longer exists. Do the Conservatives and my colleague agree with Food Banks Canada in their call for comprehensive EI reform so that gig workers, part-time workers and precarious workers can actually access the benefits that they pay for?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague talked about food banks, because Food Banks Canada is here on the Hill today. Food Banks Canada made it clear, and actually warned us, that our employment insurance system no longer reflects the reality of work in Canada. This is impacting people. More Canadians are working multiple part-time jobs, contract positions and gig work. Yet, they are paying into a system that often denies them support when they need it most. It highlighted that while food bank use continues to reach record levels and families struggle with the rising cost of living, millions of workers are being left behind by an outdated EI system designed for a workplace that no longer exists. Do the Conservatives and my colleague agree with Food Banks Canada in their call for comprehensive EI reform so that gig workers, part-time workers and precarious workers can actually access the benefits that they pay for?
“The federal government gives Atlantic Canada about $291 per ferry passenger, but gives BC Ferries only $1.63. I want the government to give British Columbia fair, long-term funding for its ferries.”
“Mr. Speaker, ferries are essential highways for coastal communities. Of course we support strong federal funding for ferry services in Atlantic Canada. However, BC Ferries receives only $1.63 per passenger in federal operational support, compared to about $291 per passenger in Atlantic Canada. Temporary relief measures and repayable loans for B.C. cannot replace fair, long-term federal operational support. When will the Liberal government finally modernize these outdated agreements and provide fair support for British Columbia and BC Ferries?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, ferries are essential highways for coastal communities. Of course we support strong federal funding for ferry services in Atlantic Canada. However, BC Ferries receives only $1.63 per passenger in federal operational support, compared to about $291 per passenger in Atlantic Canada. Temporary relief measures and repayable loans for B.C. cannot replace fair, long-term federal operational support. When will the Liberal government finally modernize these outdated agreements and provide fair support for British Columbia and BC Ferries?
“Criminals are using artificial intelligence to run scams that target seniors and families who are already struggling. The government must act quickly to block scam calls, hold banks and online platforms accountable, and help victims recover their money.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about AI, which I want to talk about. We know that Canadians right now are facing rising costs and economic uncertainty. Financial fraud is even becoming a greater threat, and it is not being talked enough about today. Organized crime is using AI-generated scams for deepfakes, spoof calls and fake investment schemes to target people already under financial pressure. A record amount of fraud is impacting seniors in my riding who are losing their life savings. Families are being defrauded, and victims are often left to recover on their own. Protecting Canadians requires urgent government intervention: blocking scam calls, holding financial institutions and digital platforms accountable, ensuring that victims have access to support and recovery services, and growing the scale and urgency of this problem at a time when every dollar counts. When will the Liberals finally combat fraud using the measures they have, as a key tool in protecting Canadians’ financial security and economic well-being?”
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about AI, which I want to talk about. We know that Canadians right now are facing rising costs and economic uncertainty. Financial fraud is even becoming a greater threat, and it is not being talked enough about today. Organized crime is using AI-generated scams for deepfakes, spoof calls and fake investment schemes to target people already under financial pressure. A record amount of fraud is impacting seniors in my riding who are losing their life savings. Families are being defrauded, and victims are often left to recover on their own. Protecting Canadians requires urgent government intervention: blocking scam calls, holding financial institutions and digital platforms accountable, ensuring that victims have access to support and recovery services, and growing the scale and urgency of this problem at a time when every dollar counts. When will the Liberals finally combat fraud using the measures they have, as a key tool in protecting Canadians’ financial security and economic well-being?
“People on the west coast feel ignored by the government. Last year, nearly 10 million sockeye salmon returned to the Fraser River, but local fishers were not allowed to catch them. I want to know what the government will change before the 2026 season so our fishers get fair access.”
“Madam Speaker, the speech I just gave was about a growing feeling on Vancouver Island and across the west coast that our communities are too often treated like an afterthought. Talking about a survey that was done four years ago, or a new survey that the Liberals are going to do eight years after the fisheries and oceans report, just says it all. The frustration could not be more clear. Another example is what happened last year on the Fraser River. Nearly 10 million sockeye returned, one of the strongest runs in decades, yet independent fish harvesters, including indigenous commercial harvesters, were effectively shut out while families struggled to keep their boats and businesses afloat. Nobody is arguing against conservation. Weak stocks need to be protected, and treaty obligations with the United States through the Pacific Salmon Commission must be respected, but when Canada’s own commercial fleet is denied fair access during years of proven abundance, it undermines confidence in the system. I want to know today from the parliamentary secretary what concrete changes the government will make before the 2026 Fraser sockeye season to ensure that this never happens again.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, the speech I just gave was about a growing feeling on Vancouver Island and across the west coast that our communities are too often treated like an afterthought. Talking about a survey that was done four years ago, or a new survey that the Liberals are going to do eight years after the fisheries and oceans report, just says it all. The frustration could not be more clear. Another example is what happened last year on the Fraser River. Nearly 10 million sockeye returned, one of the strongest runs in decades, yet independent fish harvesters, including indigenous commercial harvesters, were effectively shut out while families struggled to keep their boats and businesses afloat. Nobody is arguing against conservation. Weak stocks need to be protected, and treaty obligations with the United States through the Pacific Salmon Commission must be respected, but when Canada’s own commercial fleet is denied fair access during years of proven abundance, it undermines confidence in the system. I want to know today from the parliamentary secretary what concrete changes the government will make before the 2026 Fraser sockeye season to ensure that this never happens again.
“The federal government treats Vancouver Island and the west coast unfairly. Big corporations and foreign owners are pushing out local fish harvesters, and the government has not fixed the rules like it did on the east coast. Our ferries get far less federal money per person than east coast ferries do. We also do not have fair representation in the Senate. I want the government to give Vancouver Island fair funding, fair representation, and better fishery rules.”
“Madam Speaker, tonight’s debate is about fisheries policy on the west coast, but it is also about something bigger. It is about whether coastal communities on Vancouver Island and across British Columbia are treated with the same fairness and respect as other parts of the country. On the west coast, commercial fish harvesters, the people actually doing the fishing, are being pushed out. Corporate concentration and growing foreign ownership of licences and quota are driving up costs and draining wealth out of coastal communities. We actually do not even know who owns much of the quota because there is still no public registry. Meanwhile, on the east coast, an owner-operator model protects independent fish harvesters and keeps the value in local communities. Eight years ago, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans made unanimous recommendations to bring those same protections to the west coast, yet eight years later, there still has not been any meaningful action. That delay has real consequences. Every year, more access, control and wealth leave the hands of independent fish harvesters and coastal communities. It is a huge economic leakage. This is not a new problem. The solutions have already been identified, but what has been missing is the Liberal government’s willingness to act. For many Vancouver Islanders, this is part of a larger problem. We often hear about western alienation. It is real and few large populations in Canada understand that feeling better than Vancouver Islanders, not because we want to leave Canada. Vancouver Islanders believe that Canada is stronger together, but people begin to feel alienated when they are ignored, under-represented and treated unfairly for decades. A perfect example is our ferry system, which is a huge cost barrier to getting our seafood products to market. As coastal peoples, we understand that ferries are not a luxury. They are essential highways that connect communities to the rest of Canada, which is why we deserve strong federal ferry support. According to the Library of Parliament, last year, BC Ferries received approximately $1.63 in federal support per passenger, while federally supported east coast ferry systems received approximately $291 per passenger, roughly 178 times more support than BC Ferries received. Marine Atlantic received 300 times more support. This is not about taking away support from Atlantic Canadians. Their ferry systems are essential national infrastructure. The issue is that Vancouver Islanders are asking why essential marine highways on the west coast are not treated with the same level of federal importance. The federal government keeps pointing to constitutional agreements signed more than 80 years ago and funding formulas created nearly 50 years ago, when Vancouver Island had about 450,000 residents. The government now points to temporary pandemic relief and repayable Infrastructure Bank loans as proof that the system is fair, but emergency COVID funding was temporary. Atlantic ferry systems also receive pandemic support. Loans still have to be repaid by British Columbians through fares and borrowing costs. That is not the same as ongoing federal operational support. Today, Vancouver Island is approaching one million people and BC Ferries carries more than 22 million passengers annually. These are essential marine highways connecting workers, seniors, families, students, truckers and businesses, including those in the blue economy and our supply chains. Premier Eby made the point clearly. The federal government should not reward provinces that threaten separation while ignoring regions that continue working constructively within the federation. Unlike some provinces, Vancouver Islanders are not threatening to separate from Canada because they are frustrated by this unfairness, but people are asking why consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have continued treating us like an afterthought. It does not stop there. Nearly one million people live on Vancouver Island, yet not a single senator clearly rooted on Vancouver Island has been appointed in more than 55 years. Meanwhile, New Brunswick, with a comparable population, has 10 Senate seats. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador together have fewer people than Vancouver Island, yet they also hold 10 seats. That means no Vancouver Island senator on the Senate fisheries committee. This is what being ignored looks like. Vancouver Islanders are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for fairness: fair ferry funding, fair representation and fair fisheries policies that protect coastal communities. As Vancouver Islanders, we love this country. We believe in Canada, but we know this country is—”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, tonight’s debate is about fisheries policy on the west coast, but it is also about something bigger. It is about whether coastal communities on Vancouver Island and across British Columbia are treated with the same fairness and respect as other parts of the country. On the west coast, commercial fish harvesters, the people actually doing the fishing, are being pushed out. Corporate concentration and growing foreign ownership of licences and quota are driving up costs and draining wealth out of coastal communities. We actually do not even know who owns much of the quota because there is still no public registry. Meanwhile, on the east coast, an owner-operator model protects independent fish harvesters and keeps the value in local communities. Eight years ago, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans made unanimous recommendations to bring those same protections to the west coast, yet eight years later, there still has not been any meaningful action. That delay has real consequences. Every year, more access, control and wealth leave the hands of independent fish harvesters and coastal communities. It is a huge economic leakage. This is not a new problem. The solutions have already been identified, but what has been missing is the Liberal government’s willingness to act. For many Vancouver Islanders, this is part of a larger problem. We often hear about western alienation. It is real and few large populations in Canada understand that feeling better than Vancouver Islanders, not because we want to leave Canada. Vancouver Islanders believe that Canada is stronger together, but people begin to feel alienated when they are ignored, under-represented and treated unfairly for decades. A perfect example is our ferry system, which is a huge cost barrier to getting our seafood products to market. As coastal peoples, we understand that ferries are not a luxury. They are essential highways that connect communities to the rest of Canada, which is why we deserve strong federal ferry support. According to the Library of Parliament, last year, BC Ferries received approximately $1.63 in federal support per passenger, while federally supported east coast ferry systems received approximately $291 per passenger, roughly 178 times more support than BC Ferries received. Marine Atlantic received 300 times more support. This is not about taking away support from Atlantic Canadians. Their ferry systems are essential national infrastructure. The issue is that Vancouver Islanders are asking why essential marine highways on the west coast are not treated with the same level of federal importance. The federal government keeps pointing to constitutional agreements signed more than 80 years ago and funding formulas created nearly 50 years ago, when Vancouver Island had about 450,000 residents. The government now points to temporary pandemic relief and repayable Infrastructure Bank loans as proof that the system is fair, but emergency COVID funding was temporary. Atlantic ferry systems also receive pandemic support. Loans still have to be repaid by British Columbians through fares and borrowing costs. That is not the same as ongoing federal operational support. Today, Vancouver Island is approaching one million people and BC Ferries carries more than 22 million passengers annually. These are essential marine highways connecting workers, seniors, families, students, truckers and businesses, including those in the blue economy and our supply chains. Premier Eby made the point clearly. The federal government should not reward provinces that threaten separation while ignoring regions that continue working constructively within the federation. Unlike some provinces, Vancouver Islanders are not threatening to separate from Canada because they are frustrated by this unfairness, but people are asking why consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have continued treating us like an afterthought. It does not stop there. Nearly one million people live on Vancouver Island, yet not a single senator clearly rooted on Vancouver Island has been appointed in more than 55 years. Meanwhile, New Brunswick, with a comparable population, has 10 Senate seats. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador together have fewer people than Vancouver Island, yet they also hold 10 seats. That means no Vancouver Island senator on the Senate fisheries committee. This is what being ignored looks like. Vancouver Islanders are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for fairness: fair ferry funding, fair representation and fair fisheries policies that protect coastal communities. As Vancouver Islanders, we love this country. We believe in Canada, but we know this country is—
“I want to thank the member who resigned for standing up for the environment. His choice shows that the government is weakening climate rules and backing away from protecting our planet.”
“Mr. Speaker, this resignation should be of serious concern to all Canadians. It is a huge wake-up call, hopefully for everybody. What our colleague is doing today takes incredible courage. It takes courage to stand up for climate science and environmental protection for future generations when powerful interests inside government are pushing in the opposite direction. As New Democrats, we have had the opportunity to work across the aisle with our colleague when he was a former minister on a number of important issues, including climate accountability, biodiversity protection and building a fair transition for workers and communities. We may not have always agreed, but he understood that the climate crisis demands action, not delay. The people of Laurier—Sainte-Marie were represented by someone who consistently fought to put the climate crisis and environmental protection on the national agenda. Now the government is weakening emissions caps, backing away from environmental protection and putting fossil fuel expansion ahead of climate leadership while Canadians face devastating fires, floods and extreme weather. We as New Democrats want to thank the member for his courage and his public service. We want to wish him well and encourage him to keep fighting for climate justice and for the future of our planet. We look forward to continuing to work with him to tackle the climate crisis.”
Mr. Speaker, this resignation should be of serious concern to all Canadians. It is a huge wake-up call, hopefully for everybody. What our colleague is doing today takes incredible courage. It takes courage to stand up for climate science and environmental protection for future generations when powerful interests inside government are pushing in the opposite direction. As New Democrats, we have had the opportunity to work across the aisle with our colleague when he was a former minister on a number of important issues, including climate accountability, biodiversity protection and building a fair transition for workers and communities. We may not have always agreed, but he understood that the climate crisis demands action, not delay. The people of Laurier—Sainte-Marie were represented by someone who consistently fought to put the climate crisis and environmental protection on the national agenda. Now the government is weakening emissions caps, backing away from environmental protection and putting fossil fuel expansion ahead of climate leadership while Canadians face devastating fires, floods and extreme weather. We as New Democrats want to thank the member for his courage and his public service. We want to wish him well and encourage him to keep fighting for climate justice and for the future of our planet. We look forward to continuing to work with him to tackle the climate crisis.
“Canada had one of its worst wildfire seasons, and we are missing our climate targets. Why is the government planning to produce more fossil fuels instead of moving away from them?”
“Mr. Speaker, 2025 was the second-worst wildfire season in Canadian history, and Canadians are bracing for another devastating summer. Despite the growing climate crisis, Canada is missing its climate targets and running out of time. While more than 50 countries gathered in Colombia to discuss the transition away from fossil fuels, the Liberals did not even send a minister. Instead they came home with a plan to fast-track more fossil fuel extraction. At a time when communities are burning and families are being displaced, why is the Liberal government doubling down on fossil fuel extraction?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, 2025 was the second-worst wildfire season in Canadian history, and Canadians are bracing for another devastating summer. Despite the growing climate crisis, Canada is missing its climate targets and running out of time. While more than 50 countries gathered in Colombia to discuss the transition away from fossil fuels, the Liberals did not even send a minister. Instead they came home with a plan to fast-track more fossil fuel extraction. At a time when communities are burning and families are being displaced, why is the Liberal government doubling down on fossil fuel extraction?
“I want the member to push her government to make a free medicine deal with Ontario. People in her province need coverage for prescription drugs.”
“Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague on her election. She has been a strong proponent of a universal public pharmacare plan. She has long advocated and argued that a national single-payer pharmacare program would actually save money, but now she represents a riding in a province that does not have a pharmacare deal. Can New Democrats, the people of Ontario and the people of her riding count on her to be a champion, to force her government to get to the table with Ontario and deliver on the promise of a national pharmacare plan so those people in Ontario can actually get access to it?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague on her election. She has been a strong proponent of a universal public pharmacare plan. She has long advocated and argued that a national single-payer pharmacare program would actually save money, but now she represents a riding in a province that does not have a pharmacare deal. Can New Democrats, the people of Ontario and the people of her riding count on her to be a champion, to force her government to get to the table with Ontario and deliver on the promise of a national pharmacare plan so those people in Ontario can actually get access to it?
“The government is looking at selling our airports to private companies. That will hurt travellers. I want the member to promise the government will not privatize Canada's airports.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have known my colleague for a long time. I have a lot of respect for him. The spring economic update states that the government is “assessing opportunities to unlock the...value of airports in support of investments in Canada’s long-term growth, including through alternative models of ownership.” The Liberal government is looking at privatizing airports. This is not something that even Conservatives would do. Rod Sims, the former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, highlighted that “the travelling public loses big time, over time” when they tried this experiment. Will my colleague stand in the House and tell the Canadian public that they will not privatize Canada’s airports?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I have known my colleague for a long time. I have a lot of respect for him. The spring economic update states that the government is “assessing opportunities to unlock the...value of airports in support of investments in Canada’s long-term growth, including through alternative models of ownership.” The Liberal government is looking at privatizing airports. This is not something that even Conservatives would do. Rod Sims, the former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, highlighted that “the travelling public loses big time, over time” when they tried this experiment. Will my colleague stand in the House and tell the Canadian public that they will not privatize Canada’s airports?
“The government cut study permits for international students without talking to colleges and universities first. This forced schools on Vancouver Island to shut down nearly 30 training programs. The government cannot train the workers Canada needs if its policies keep closing the programs that train them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my Liberal colleague in terms of the $6-billion plan to recruit and train 100,000 new Red Seal workers. However, the Liberal government cut international student study permits by more than 40% and restricted postgraduate work permits without consulting higher-learning institutions that rely on those students. The consequences have been hard-hitting on Vancouver Island. Nearly 30 programs have been cut between North Island College and Vancouver Island University, including a dental assistant program that has trained workers for 50 years. The Prime Minister says that Canada must deliver major nation-building projects. How will the government build the workforce Canada needs while its policies shut down the very important programs that are needed to train those workers, especially in rural Canada, in places like Port Alberni? Maybe my colleague can speak about how that impact is hurting her riding and people who want to study and participate in the workforce in her community.”
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my Liberal colleague in terms of the $6-billion plan to recruit and train 100,000 new Red Seal workers. However, the Liberal government cut international student study permits by more than 40% and restricted postgraduate work permits without consulting higher-learning institutions that rely on those students. The consequences have been hard-hitting on Vancouver Island. Nearly 30 programs have been cut between North Island College and Vancouver Island University, including a dental assistant program that has trained workers for 50 years. The Prime Minister says that Canada must deliver major nation-building projects. How will the government build the workforce Canada needs while its policies shut down the very important programs that are needed to train those workers, especially in rural Canada, in places like Port Alberni? Maybe my colleague can speak about how that impact is hurting her riding and people who want to study and participate in the workforce in her community.
“The health minister says she protects the health care act, but she has not told Canadians her plan for it. I want her to share her plan and rules publicly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Chris Gallaway was here today. He is from Friends of Medicare from Alberta. He highlighted that the minister, who has claimed over and over again in questions from me and from my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, that she is the guardian of the Health Care Act, has not told Canadians what she thinks about the act, what her plan is, and what regulations would suit her needs and what ones would not. She has not communicated publicly on this issue, which would really help us know what her thinking is, how we can move forward on regulations and what is happening. She has not shared that as our federal health minister.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Chris Gallaway was here today. He is from Friends of Medicare from Alberta. He highlighted that the minister, who has claimed over and over again in questions from me and from my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, that she is the guardian of the Health Care Act, has not told Canadians what she thinks about the act, what her plan is, and what regulations would suit her needs and what ones would not. She has not communicated publicly on this issue, which would really help us know what her thinking is, how we can move forward on regulations and what is happening. She has not shared that as our federal health minister.
“The government has not kept its promises to protect and improve public health care. The health minister should have shown up tonight to answer for this.”
“Mr. Speaker, here we are. We are the last people here again. It has been four weeks in a row that I have dragged the government in here because it has not done its job to fulfill its promises when it comes to protecting our public health care system or to enhancing our system. In fact, it has failed to even protect it from the threats it is facing. This is no slight to the parliamentary secretary of industry, but it is shameful that the Minister of Health or her parliamentary secretary could not show up for this very important debate tonight. It is very disappointing.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, here we are. We are the last people here again. It has been four weeks in a row that I have dragged the government in here because it has not done its job to fulfill its promises when it comes to protecting our public health care system or to enhancing our system. In fact, it has failed to even protect it from the threats it is facing. This is no slight to the parliamentary secretary of industry, but it is shameful that the Minister of Health or her parliamentary secretary could not show up for this very important debate tonight. It is very disappointing.
“I want the government to enforce the Canada Health Act and stop Alberta from letting people pay for private health care. Allowing people to pay for faster care breaks the law and hurts our public system.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here tonight. I would first like to begin by extending my congratulations to Louise Arbour on her appointment today to serve as Canada’s next governor general. She is a human rights champion, and she has had a remarkable career. She will, no doubt, continue to serve our country well in this new role. With that, I would like to turn the topic of debate this evening to Alberta’s Bill 11 and the Canada Health Act. In the last election, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that a Liberal government would protect our values and way of life. The Liberal platform highlighted our public health care system as an example of Canadians’ belief in the common good and a key difference between Canada and the U.S. The Liberal platform pledged to defend the Canada Health Act and told Canadians, “It’s time to return to the foundational values upon which our national health care was developed: free of charge, fair, universal, and accessible.” Today, those values are under threat, but instead of fighting for what matters to Canadians, the federal government is looking the other way. This morning, an independent legal opinion was published that confirmed what many have been saying for months. Alberta’s Bill 11 violates both the letter and the spirit of the Canada Health Act. The legal opinion, commissioned by the Canadian Health Coalition, explains that allowing people to pay privately for faster access to medically necessary care creates unequal access based on one’s ability to pay. In plain terms, Bill 11 would create an American-style, two-tier health care system. It is time for the minister to make clear that the government will keep its promise to Canadians and defend the Canada Health Act. The minister has called herself “the guardian of the Canada Health Act”, but since December, she has failed to act on this threat to our public health care system. Today, the Canada Health Coalition held a press conference with health and legal experts, calling for the minister to act, to take a clear position against Bill 11 and to speak about the threats the bill poses for all Canadians. Jason MacLean, chair of the Canadian Health Coalition, spoke about how the crisis in our health care system, fuelled by Conservative premiers, is seen as a business opportunity by major insurance companies. That should concern every Canadian who believes that health care is a right. Dr. Melanie Bechard, the chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare and a pediatric emergency physician at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, also spoke today in Ottawa. She spoke about how allowing dual practice will impact wait times, stating, “If we are...prioritizing...patients who can pay privately, that means that the majority of patients who rely on the public system will have to wait longer.” Let us be clear. Canadians deserve quicker access to the health care they need, but a two-tier health care system is not a solution to long wait times. Chris Gallaway, the executive director of Friends of Medicare in Alberta, also spoke in Ottawa today and called on the minister to take action to stop Bill 11. He said bluntly, “no more delays. No more stalling. No more talking about looking at regulations and implementation. We need you to do your job and show leadership”. If the federal government fails to enforce the Canada Health Act now, it sends a clear message far beyond Alberta. It tells provinces that the rules can be bent. It tells private interests that our public system is open for profits. Canadians did not build Medicare so that it could be quietly replaced with a system where wealth determines who gets treated first. If the federal government does not act now, it risks opening the door to further privatization across the country. I will ask this again: Will the minister stop stalling, enforce the Canada Health Act and stand up for a health care system that serves everyone equally?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here tonight. I would first like to begin by extending my congratulations to Louise Arbour on her appointment today to serve as Canada’s next governor general. She is a human rights champion, and she has had a remarkable career. She will, no doubt, continue to serve our country well in this new role. With that, I would like to turn the topic of debate this evening to Alberta’s Bill 11 and the Canada Health Act. In the last election, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that a Liberal government would protect our values and way of life. The Liberal platform highlighted our public health care system as an example of Canadians’ belief in the common good and a key difference between Canada and the U.S. The Liberal platform pledged to defend the Canada Health Act and told Canadians, “It’s time to return to the foundational values upon which our national health care was developed: free of charge, fair, universal, and accessible.” Today, those values are under threat, but instead of fighting for what matters to Canadians, the federal government is looking the other way. This morning, an independent legal opinion was published that confirmed what many have been saying for months. Alberta’s Bill 11 violates both the letter and the spirit of the Canada Health Act. The legal opinion, commissioned by the Canadian Health Coalition, explains that allowing people to pay privately for faster access to medically necessary care creates unequal access based on one’s ability to pay. In plain terms, Bill 11 would create an American-style, two-tier health care system. It is time for the minister to make clear that the government will keep its promise to Canadians and defend the Canada Health Act. The minister has called herself “the guardian of the Canada Health Act”, but since December, she has failed to act on this threat to our public health care system. Today, the Canada Health Coalition held a press conference with health and legal experts, calling for the minister to act, to take a clear position against Bill 11 and to speak about the threats the bill poses for all Canadians. Jason MacLean, chair of the Canadian Health Coalition, spoke about how the crisis in our health care system, fuelled by Conservative premiers, is seen as a business opportunity by major insurance companies. That should concern every Canadian who believes that health care is a right. Dr. Melanie Bechard, the chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare and a pediatric emergency physician at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, also spoke today in Ottawa. She spoke about how allowing dual practice will impact wait times, stating, “If we are...prioritizing...patients who can pay privately, that means that the majority of patients who rely on the public system will have to wait longer.” Let us be clear. Canadians deserve quicker access to the health care they need, but a two-tier health care system is not a solution to long wait times. Chris Gallaway, the executive director of Friends of Medicare in Alberta, also spoke in Ottawa today and called on the minister to take action to stop Bill 11. He said bluntly, “no more delays. No more stalling. No more talking about looking at regulations and implementation. We need you to do your job and show leadership”. If the federal government fails to enforce the Canada Health Act now, it sends a clear message far beyond Alberta. It tells provinces that the rules can be bent. It tells private interests that our public system is open for profits. Canadians did not build Medicare so that it could be quietly replaced with a system where wealth determines who gets treated first. If the federal government does not act now, it risks opening the door to further privatization across the country. I will ask this again: Will the minister stop stalling, enforce the Canada Health Act and stand up for a health care system that serves everyone equally?
“I want to honour Eva Hilborn, who is turning 100 years old. She worked as a teacher for decades, built early learning programs, and helped generations of children learn to read.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour Eva Hilborn, who is in her 100th year and whose life has been defined by service and an unwavering commitment to nurturing a love of learning in children. Born on a Manitoba farm in 1926, Eva began teaching at just 17 years old and went on to shape generations of students across British Columbia. In Port Alberni, she helped build early childhood education programs from the ground up, understanding that a strong start in life begins with books, curiosity and confidence. Known to first nations families as “the book lady”, Eva has spent decades putting books into the hands of children and supporting education for young women. Her legacy will live in every child inspired to read and dream. I thank Eva for the lasting impact she has made on generations of children and for a century of inspiring leadership and generosity of spirit.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour Eva Hilborn, who is in her 100th year and whose life has been defined by service and an unwavering commitment to nurturing a love of learning in children. Born on a Manitoba farm in 1926, Eva began teaching at just 17 years old and went on to shape generations of students across British Columbia. In Port Alberni, she helped build early childhood education programs from the ground up, understanding that a strong start in life begins with books, curiosity and confidence. Known to first nations families as “the book lady”, Eva has spent decades putting books into the hands of children and supporting education for young women. Her legacy will live in every child inspired to read and dream. I thank Eva for the lasting impact she has made on generations of children and for a century of inspiring leadership and generosity of spirit.
“The government is ignoring forestry workers who are hurt by Donald Trump's tariffs. Workers in British Columbia and Quebec need fair support just like other industries. I want my colleague to speak about this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc colleague for putting this very important motion forward today. Maybe my colleague could speak about how this government has completely forgotten forestry workers and the forestry sector, and how unfair it has been, in terms of government support for sectors that are struggling due to the harm and damage that Donald Trump’s tariffs are causing Canadian workers in industry sectors, and forestry workers in particular. We heard from the premier of British Columbia just yesterday. He spoke about how the forestry workers in B.C. have not been fairly treated compared to other sectors. We believe that those other sectors should be supported. I also know many forestry workers in Quebec are suffering. I hope my colleague can share her perspective.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc colleague for putting this very important motion forward today. Maybe my colleague could speak about how this government has completely forgotten forestry workers and the forestry sector, and how unfair it has been, in terms of government support for sectors that are struggling due to the harm and damage that Donald Trump’s tariffs are causing Canadian workers in industry sectors, and forestry workers in particular. We heard from the premier of British Columbia just yesterday. He spoke about how the forestry workers in B.C. have not been fairly treated compared to other sectors. We believe that those other sectors should be supported. I also know many forestry workers in Quebec are suffering. I hope my colleague can share her perspective.
“Norway's sovereign wealth fund is independent and used only for the public good. Canada's fund should be the same. It should not be used for political projects, like a pipeline that businesses and First Nations do not support. Does my colleague agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, we hear the Prime Minister and my colleague compare the sovereign wealth fund to the Norwegian fund. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is independent, and it is only for public good. It is not used for political interests or what the Liberals call nation-building projects, which could end up funnelling money to Danielle Smith’s dream pipeline through the north coast, billions of dollars for a pipeline that the private sector does not even have support for, never mind support from coastal first nations that are opposed to it. Does my colleague agree that the sovereign wealth fund should be independent and only for public good, not for supporting private projects that are not economically viable?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, we hear the Prime Minister and my colleague compare the sovereign wealth fund to the Norwegian fund. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is independent, and it is only for public good. It is not used for political interests or what the Liberals call nation-building projects, which could end up funnelling money to Danielle Smith’s dream pipeline through the north coast, billions of dollars for a pipeline that the private sector does not even have support for, never mind support from coastal first nations that are opposed to it. Does my colleague agree that the sovereign wealth fund should be independent and only for public good, not for supporting private projects that are not economically viable?
“I want the government to negotiate with the provinces and deliver free medicine to all Canadians. Too many people are left out right now, and provinces like Nova Scotia are ready to sign deals. This program would save families and provinces money.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for coming. I know it is inconvenient, but I will continue to drag her and her government here to debate this issue, because what we heard does not match the reality that Canadians are facing. It is great to hear that British Columbians are getting access to pharmacare. The government says pharmacare is moving ahead, but only four out of five Canadians are accessing it. That is not progress; that is exclusion. The Liberals say it takes time, but provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are ready now, and the federal government is refusing to negotiate. We just heard the parliamentary secretary say it is too expensive, but pharmacare actually saves money for families and for provinces. The real cost is forcing Canadians to go without the medicine they need. Let us be clear. Mentioning pharmacare once in a major economic update is not a plan. It is a signal that the government is walking away from its promise, and it is not nation building. Canadians were told that this would be a national program, not a patchwork or something determined by postal code. No one in this country should have to choose between paying rent and filling a prescription. The question remains. When will the government stop delaying, start negotiating and deliver pharmacare for all Canadians?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for coming. I know it is inconvenient, but I will continue to drag her and her government here to debate this issue, because what we heard does not match the reality that Canadians are facing. It is great to hear that British Columbians are getting access to pharmacare. The government says pharmacare is moving ahead, but only four out of five Canadians are accessing it. That is not progress; that is exclusion. The Liberals say it takes time, but provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are ready now, and the federal government is refusing to negotiate. We just heard the parliamentary secretary say it is too expensive, but pharmacare actually saves money for families and for provinces. The real cost is forcing Canadians to go without the medicine they need. Let us be clear. Mentioning pharmacare once in a major economic update is not a plan. It is a signal that the government is walking away from its promise, and it is not nation building. Canadians were told that this would be a national program, not a patchwork or something determined by postal code. No one in this country should have to choose between paying rent and filling a prescription. The question remains. When will the government stop delaying, start negotiating and deliver pharmacare for all Canadians?
