Grant Jackson

“I want to know if the member will protect aerospace jobs in Manitoba. The government seems focused on deals that create jobs in eastern Canada, but workers in Winnipeg build parts for the F-35 fighter jet.”

“Madam Speaker, in picking up exactly where the member left off, I will say that am quite curious about protecting defence industrial capability. We heard a lot from the member and from the Prime Minister about Saab and the agreement on surveillance planes. We are all wondering when the government is going to make the decision on our next fighter jet capability. I understand there have been promises from Saab about eastern Canadian jobs but very little about that for western Canada, if the Gripen is to be produced in Canada. Meanwhile, many good jobs in Winnipeg are based at Magellan Aerospace, which makes the entire tail fin component of the F-35. I am wondering if the member is going to advocate just as strongly for aerospace industry jobs in Manitoba as he is for those in eastern Canada.”

In response to a question from Amarjeet Gill

“The government is putting taxes on streaming services and film companies instead of letting businesses compete. We need more competition and less government control. I want the Liberals to vote with us today.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member from Brampton is an excellent member of Parliament. I think the answer is simple. The Liberals would much rather that all businesses in this country be reliant on the government to get ahead, as opposed to being able to compete themselves. We have seen that in industry after industry. Now the government is meddling away again, allowing the CRTC to increase this tax on digital service providers, our streaming services and our film industries. It is shameful. We need more competition in this country. We need less government intervention in the market. That is what Conservatives are calling for. We hope the Liberals will vote for it today.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Canadians are not getting enough relief from high costs. The government should remove all taxes on all fuel for the rest of the year.”

“Mr. Speaker, in typical Liberal fashion, there was nothing about the fuel tax. The Liberals’ half measure on fuel tax is just three months away from expiring. Does the member know any Canadians who have felt real relief? I sure do not. In fact, the only people I see waving the “mission accomplished” flag are people like the minister who are Liberals. Everyone knows that it will take years to truly solve the Liberal inflation crisis. The least these tired, costly Liberals could do is give Canadians a real break on all their fuel taxes. Is the Liberal plan really to tell Canadians that their affordability crisis will be solved by the end of summer? Seriously? Why do they not take all the tax off all the fuel for the rest of the year and give Canadians some real relief today?”

“The government needs to focus on helping farmers grow more food in Canada instead of just giving out grocery rebates. Growing more food here will make groceries cheaper. The government should use tax breaks to support projects like greenhouses, as Manitoba did, and I want to know when they will act.”

“Madam Speaker, that was a lesson in obfuscation that would give even the Manitoba provincial NDP a run for their money, and that is saying something. My colleague from Winnipeg North will know what I am talking about. The member did eventually get to domestic food production at about minute three in that response, but the vast majority of what he talked about was grocery benefits that will not help farmers and producers grow more food domestically. That needs to be more than just a footnote at the very end of the government’s responses. It needs to be the primary focus. More supply means cheaper groceries and produce at the store. If there were a small greenhouse benefit, there may be some merit to that, but there needs to be far more done by the government to increase domestic food production. We see it happening when government acts appropriately. The previous PC government in Manitoba provided the right tax incentives to Vermillion Growers in Dauphin. It has set up a massive tomato greenhouse in rural Manitoba in the Parkland region, which is growing year-round, providing fresh produce to Manitobans and those in eastern Saskatchewan. These things can be done if they are done appropriately. How much longer does the government want to take?”

“I want to recognize Russ Edwards and his late wife, Edna Edwards. They have donated millions of dollars to Assiniboine College to help nursing and agriculture students. The federal government still needs to invest in the college's agriculture centre.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize two remarkable Manitobans who are giving back in Brandon—Souris. Earlier this month, it was announced that the late Mrs. Edna Edwards left a $4-million contribution to the Assiniboine College School of Nursing dedicated to funding research opportunities and financial awards for students. The now Edna Edwards School of Nursing will honour her legacy as a registered psychiatric nurse who was trained at the former Brandon Mental Health Centre, a facility that now forms part of Assiniboine College’s North Hill campus, a truly full-circle moment. The gift was announced by her husband, Mr. Russ Edwards, who is no stranger to Assiniboine College or to Brandon. Just four years ago, Mr. Edwards donated $4 million to create the Russ Edwards School of Agriculture and Environment aimed at the college’s vision to build the Prairie Innovation Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, a project that is still waiting on federal investment, I might add. The Edwards family’s generosity is bringing enhanced educational opportunities closer to home for more Westman students, which is a remarkable legacy for two highly successful leaders in the business and health care sectors. I thank Russ and Edna.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It gives harsher punishments to people who attack health care workers and first responders. These workers face too much violence on the job and need to be protected.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to put a few words on the record about Bill S-233. I know, although I am a new member, that it has been here before in different formats. I am very glad to see that it is back on the floor of the House of Commons again for debate. Of course, it is unfortunate that it did not pass previously and has not been in effect, but at least it has made its way back here now so we can try to get it through one last time to ensure protections are in place for our health care officials. I want to thank my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. I know that this has been a passion project of his for a long time, something he has been championing across the country. It is a big issue. I hear about it all the time, unfortunately, from health care professionals, whether they are paramedics, firefighters responding to 911 calls or health care professionals in our emergency rooms, which are becoming a cross between a traditional emergency room, a detox centre and all kinds of different mental health crisis facilities. Our health care professionals are struggling under the weight of the addiction and mental health crisis going on in this country right now. Unfortunately, many of the individuals coming in are repeat violent offenders who need help, but we have to ensure that protections are in place for our health care workers. I hear too often from young nurses and young health care professionals from many different professions that they were assaulted, attacked in some way, shape or form. They can be coming to work, leaving work, in the emergency room or responding to a call on the street. Individuals get bitten or stabbed with dirty needles. There are all kinds of other physical or violent assaults. This is just simply and completely unacceptable for anyone in the health care profession, whether they are new to the job or have been doing it for 30 years. It is totally unacceptable to Canadians that these people, who are on our front lines, stepping up to protect Canadians and do what they can to save our lives when we get into accidents or have other types of health care issues, are being assaulted in their places of work. We all expect a safe workplace, and our health care professionals should too. Just because their workplace happens to sometimes be on the streets of our communities, that does not mean that they should be any less safe when they step up for Canadians. In Manitoba, and in my constituency of Brandon—Souris, the Brandon firefighter and paramedic service does excellent work, as does the health care staff at the Brandon Regional Health Centre and the many rural hospitals that I represent across the Brandon—Souris constituency. These folks are nervous. They come to my office and say that they have seen the same person come in over and over again. Every time, there is a violent incident, and there are no repercussions for that person. They say there is nothing that they can do to prevent this from happening. They are obligated to provide health care to that individual and everybody else who is in the waiting room, and they are not safe when that individual is around. That is a major problem. This bill would go a long way toward ensuring specifically that violence against a health care professional in their place of work is considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. There has to be some repercussions for these folks. We know that they are often experiencing some type of breakdown, whether it is an addiction crisis or a mental health crisis of their own, and we have services available for that. The provinces are obligated to make services available in our health care system to get those people the care they need to bring them back to a healthy lifestyle. There is nothing in the bill that tries to diminish that in any way, but for repeat offenders who are committing violence against our health care professionals, there must be consequences for those actions. Perhaps, if it is dealt with through the court system as an aggravating factor, these folks who are experiencing and perpetrating this violence would get connected with the services they need to navigate their way back to a healthier life. I know the Liberals know all about this, because the Health Sciences Centre is Manitoba’s hospital. It is located in Winnipeg. It has some of the worst cases of violence against health care professionals in the country. There are a series of Liberal MPs who represent Winnipeg. They need to step up for the health care professionals who work at this facility, as well as those at the Grace and St. Boniface emergency rooms. This is not just for the people in my riding, but for the people in Winnipeg and all of us from rural Manitoba who end up, in large part, having to go to Winnipeg’s major hospitals for specialty surgical services and other things. We need to make sure that the health care professionals there are safe. There are a number of workers who have been attacked, not just in the emergency rooms or in hospital rooms, but also in the parkades where they park their car. This is tragic. It is a horrific incidence. I am really hopeful that the Liberals will step up, pass the bill, send it to committee, move it through the system and get it passed so that the member for Cariboo—Prince George and all of the advocates who have been asking for this, as well as health care professionals, get the support they need. Let us get the bill passed. Let us make health care professionals safer in Brandon—Souris, in Manitoba and in Canada.”

“I support sending this bill to committee, but it needs changes. It helps sick people get unapproved drugs faster when other treatments fail. However, we must stop dangerous drugs like heroin from being added to the list, limit drug company influence, and add better safety checks.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to put a few words on the record about the important bill before Parliament today. Bill C-265 is a piece of legislation that seeks to address an important issue that affects Canadians who are struggling with serious and life-threatening medical conditions. The reality is that, in Canada, individuals suffering from serious medical conditions or rare diseases may not be able to access the vital therapeutic products that are designed to help them when conventional treatments cannot. Some therapeutic products might not be approved for use in Canada and others are not marketed in Canada. These products may be well-established and approved by jurisdictions that Canada trusts, but Canadians cannot access them in the way they typically can access other drugs or other health products. Health Canada’s current special access program was set up to address this issue, but it has serious flaws. The program exists as a way to get non-marketed drugs that have been proven safe into the hands of the Canadians who, oftentimes, have no other options. The issue is that this process of actually accessing these products can be lengthy and overly bureaucratic. The special access program has strict rules requiring health care practitioners to apply for what is known as a letter of authorization before they can access certain non-marketed therapeutic products for a patient. Health practitioners in Canada are unable to prescribe unlicensed or non-marketed products in the same way they would for medications that are already available in Canada and to Canadians. Instead, approval for use is given on a case-by-case basis by the special access program for each patient seeking access to these unapproved or non-marketed therapeutic products, even if another Canadian was already approved for the same prescription drug. This has created a system where treatment has been proven effective in other countries, and even approved for other Canadians and proven effective, but, because of the administrative burdens of the program, it is still out of reach for new individuals who are diagnosed with a particular condition and who need access. Receiving over a thousand applications monthly, or more than 12,000 applications each year, the special access program has been a critical pathway for Canadians to receive medications that could help them, but it faces significant delays. At desperate moments in the lives and the health care journeys of those suffering with severe conditions or concerns, this delay often results in thousands of Canadians’ losing critical hours, days, weeks or months waiting for a letter or a response to their request, in other words, bureaucratic approvals, as they watch their health decline. In some cases, Canadians lose this precious time waiting just to find out that it is not a positive response and that their application has been denied by the program. This can lead applicants to seek out alternative treatments outside the country or even leave them, sadly, in too many cases, with nowhere else to turn. Canadians deserve timely access to care, and Conservatives understand that bureaucratic delays are a problem with the program. To address these flaws with the special access program, Bill C-265, which we are considering today, offers important changes that attempt to reshape how unlicensed or non-marketed products are accessed by Canadians. Bill C-265 seeks to make amendments to the Food and Drugs Act to require the Minister of Health to create a publicized list of pre-approved, non-marketed therapeutic products to treat serious or life-threatening conditions. This would include a 120-day deadline for the minister to make a decision about adding such a product to the list. Further, the bill would set limits and criteria related to the Minister of Health’s power to refuse emergency letters of authorization for pharmaceutical products. Bill C-265 would also reinforce the basic principle that health care practitioners should be able to use therapeutic products that are legally available when in the best interest of their patients, which we should all be able to support. Conservatives understand how and why the special access program needs refinements, and we appreciate the member opposite for bringing forward some proposed solutions to that program. However, we do have a few concerns with the bill, which I hope to outline here as well. Without guardrails in place, the bill has the ability to create risk here in Canada, both for the health of Canadians and the influence of corporations. That said, I want to be clear that we do see potential in this bill and how, in principle, it could benefit Canadians who struggle with different stages of accessing these therapeutic products that may have already been approved and are used by other Canadians. To get this bill right, considerations must be given to how it would come into force and what unintended consequences it might have without key amendments. One of our broader concerns with this legislation is the lack of a safeguard against controlled substances like diacetylmorphine, also known as heroin, being included on the list. As written, the new authorization process creates an avenue for the Minister of Health to potentially add harmful and illegal substances to the pre-approved list. These are provisions that were removed by a previous government, after having been on the list in the past. Simply put, this would mean health care practitioners could access substances like pharmaceutical-grade heroin, even though they are considered restricted or illegal drugs in Canada. Under the previous Harper Conservative government, intentional restrictions were placed on the special access program to prevent the approval of many such restricted substances. Despite that work being reversed by Trudeau Liberals, we have an opportunity with this bill to get it right and prevent addictive substances from being placed on this pre-approved list where they could pose significant risks to our public health. This bill would also create blind spots within the pharmaceutical approval process and a lack of oversight of which products are added to the pre-approved list. Not only would it give the minister the power to add or remove products, but it would also allow them to set criteria, standards and conditions without limitations. A potential safeguard to put in place to ensure due diligence with the pre-approved list is an advisory committee that would need to be consulted before the list is amended. Unfortunately, we have no idea who would sit on that committee or who would determine its composition. Given the important role this advisory committee would play, Conservatives would need to understand its composition and ensure the selection standards are clear. Finally, our concern is that Bill C-265 would open the door for corporate influence that directly contradicts safeguards already in place for pharmaceutical companies that want their products in the Canadian market. I know the previous member has spoken to that already today. The bill seeks to allow those therapeutic products that are placed on the pre-approved drug list to be exempt from the Food and Drug Act’s regulatory power, which means companies could sell their products in Canada without being subject to the stringent reviews that Health Canada requires of the normal process. A similar regulatory bypass created in this bill comes in the presumption of approval for a letter of authorization if just two expert clinicians put forward a joint treatment plan. While the principle makes sense on the surface, the bill offers no way to ensure these individuals are independent from one another or a verification that one of the two experts is not the practitioner responsible for treating the patient who is seeking the approval. There must be checks and balances in place to ensure drugs added to the pre-approved list and that received the letters of authorization meet clearly defined and verified safety standards. In closing, Conservatives stand firm in our belief that Canadians deserve timely access to health care. We appreciate that the member is trying to deal with that very real and challenging issue many Canadians face. We also believe that when they access that care, Canadians should not lose their life savings because of unforeseen health complications or expensive prescription drugs. Conservatives support getting this well-intentioned bill to committee, where we can strengthen it by strengthening safeguards to ensure controlled and addictive substances can not be added to the pre-approved list; improving oversight and accountability around the minister’s authority and the advisory committee responsible for review products; closing loopholes that could allow pharmaceutical companies to bypass Canada’s existing regulatory approval process; and ensuring the emergency authorization process includes clear independence and verification standards for expert clinicians.”

“Youth unemployment is over 14 percent, and housing construction is down. Businesses are investing in other countries instead of Canada. The government needs to get out of the way so young Canadians can find jobs and homes.”

“Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. Jobs among young people are down, not up, despite what that member has to say in the House. Young Canadians want a job and a home they can afford, neither of which they can get after 10 years of the same tired Liberals. Youth unemployment is over 14%. Housing starts are down. No new major projects are approved, and more Canadians are investing in the U.S. and the EU than in Canada. No Liberal social program is going to fix that. We need a competitive market so that investors can invest, builders can build and young Canadians can get to work. When will the Liberals get out of the way so that young Canadians can get to work and build this country?”

“I want to know why Liberal MPs from British Columbia are not speaking about land claims today. Conservative MPs from B.C. are speaking up. The Liberals from B.C. should stand up and defend their record.”

“Mr. Speaker, the only result of the last two Liberal speakers who gave those speeches is, unfortunately, that any Canadian who had to listen to them will likely have a hard time tying their shoes tonight, but I digress. I just wonder where the B.C. Liberal caucus is. The last speaker was from Manitoba. The one before that was from Saskatchewan. They are under the numbered treaties. It is a very different legal context when it comes to land claims and fee simple property. Our Conservative B.C. MPs have been out speaking about this issue, which matters to British Columbians. Why are the B.C. Liberal MPs in hiding? Where are they? Why will they not get up and defend the disastrous Liberal record on this issue?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 38 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I support my colleague's change to the government's economic update. The government is spending too much money and leaving the debt for young Canadians. I want my colleague to say more about why this budget update hurts Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, in addition to his speech, my colleague has moved a great amendment to what is a disastrous fiscal update from the government. It seems to be unable, despite labelling itself as a “new” Liberal government, to break itself of the habit of continuing to rob the piggy bank of young Canadians and future generations to blow the credit card budget on Liberal fat-cat projects. I wonder if my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge has a few more comments to put on the record about what a disaster this fiscal update is for Canadians.”

“The Liberals did not answer my question about food production. Canada needs to grow more food to lower prices at home and feed people around the world. The government has no plan to do this.”

“Madam Speaker, that is pretty much par for the course with the Liberal government, unfortunately. The question was specifically about food production, and I am not sure the Liberal member across the way used the two-word phrase “food production” at any point in that entire answer, which is par for the course, even more sadly, for the agriculture minister in responding to my questions during question period. He and his parliamentary secretary are clearly too busy tonight to answer these questions. It is an important measure that we need to be addressing because this country needs to grow more food to meet our domestic needs, to bring prices down for Canadians, as well as to continue to feed the world, which so many people from my region and across the Prairies do. It is very disappointing that the Liberals have no plan to increase food production in Canada.”

“Liberal programs cost too much and do not work. Food and housing cost more, our debt has doubled, and poverty is up. The government keeps doing the same things and expecting different results.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a long list of costly programs and a failure to get any major project approved for the province of Manitoba. I have not met a person yet who thinks any of those programs have made food or housing cheaper, or that those costly programs are actually well run. Housing and food have skyrocketed, and our debt has doubled. We have the highest youth unemployment in decades, no new major projects begun, record food bank lines and more children living below the poverty line than in years. These results, despite all the rhetoric about Liberal financial prowess, are the definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. After 11 years and no change, do these Liberals not fit the bill?”