The Speaker

Order, please There is no need for this constant cacophony when others are speaking.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

Mr. Doug Eyolfson (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, both as a member of Parliament and a physician, I have heard from constituents, patients and many others about the high cost of prescription drugs. Canadians are proud of their universal public health care system, but we know that nearly one million Canadians have to give up essentials like food to pay for their medication. That is why I am heartened to see our government taking action on this critical issue.

Could the Minister of Health update the House on our work to make prescription drugs affordable for more Canadians?

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Health, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Manitoba for his important work on the health committee and also his advocacy for pharmacare.

No Canadian should have to choose between putting food on their table and paying for prescription medication. That is why our government is committed to ensuring that all Canadians have access to a national pharmacare program, and the work is under way. In budget 2019, there are $35 million to create the Canadian drug agency and also $1 billion to address the high cost of rare diseases.

We will not rest until every Canadian has access to a national pharmacare program.

Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister claimed the Liberal MP for Steveston—Richmond East had addressed allegations of his law firm's handling of a Chinese drug boss's real estate deal. This week, faced by details of another suspicious deal, revealed by B.C.'s money laundering inquiry, the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction would not address unproven allegations.

The Prime Minister attacks small business owners as tax cheats without evidence, but in this latest emerging Liberal scandal, no action. Why is there one set of rules for Liberals and another for everyone else?

Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, the member for Thornhill may wish to test the veracity of his speculations outside the protection of the House.

However, let us talk about money laundering. Our government has demonstrated that we will take all measures available to us to stop organized crime. That includes an investment of $172 million to the RCMP for FINTRAC and CRA to establish an enforcement team, as well as making Criminal Code amendments.

That is the same government that in the last four years of the Harper government took $500 million from the RCMP and closed all 12 of the—

The Speaker

Order, please. The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

Mr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, people from my riding are here in Ottawa to protest against the Telus tower that is being forced on Otterburn Park. Students Romane, Laurence and Emma-Rose from École Notre-Dame launched a petition signed by about 100 students to protect their magnificent woodland.

If the minister will not listen to the citizen movement or to the municipality, will he listen to the young people who want to protect the environment from the Telus tower? Will he block the tower in Otterburn Park?

Mr. Rémi Massé (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, our government believes that communities should have a say in where cell towers are installed in their area.

Telecommunications companies also need to consult communities in an open and transparent manner. However, this matter is before the courts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, a 2004 RCMP report concluded that the RCMP 911 call centre should be “outside of HRM given the risks of placing the two largest police communications centres in close proximity to each other”. The risks given were a risk of environmental disasters and threats to our communications system. Strangely, a new RCMP report says that the 2004 concerns were reassessed and they were no longer a risk.

Would the minister ask the RCMP to make available the study that explains why environmental disasters and communications threats were a risk in 2004—

The Speaker

The hon. Minister of Public Safety.

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been in touch with me many times about this matter. The safety of Nova Scotians is the top priority for the RCMP's H Division, which functions as Nova Scotia's provincial police force. In that capacity, it makes the necessary decisions about the most effective deployment of provincial assets and facilities, including the provincial operations and communications centre.

It is obtaining the counsel of an independent assessor to ensure that its provincial responsibilities are safely and properly discharged in the best interest of Nova Scotians.

Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, in March 2016, the Prime Minister promised to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. He said, “I’m confident that we are on a track towards resolving this irritant in the coming weeks and month.” That was three years ago. Yesterday, the third mill in my riding in two weeks closed its doors.

The Liberals have lots of time for their millionaire friends, but when it comes to B.C. workers, they cannot lift a finger.

Will the Prime Minister finally make good on his promise to resolve the softwood lumber dispute and save jobs?

Mr. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Conservatives simply do not know what they are talking about on this issue. Our government saw the consequences of the wretched quota deal the Conservatives accepted on softwood lumber, which is why we refused to accept the tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum.

We are continuing our legal challenges against the U.S. softwood duties through NAFTA, through the WTO, where Canadian softwood has always won in the past.

Our government will always defend Canadian workers and Canadian industry.

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said yesterday that Bill 21 violates fundamental rights and individual freedoms and that he would always defend the charter. He was basically saying that he intends to challenge the Government of Quebec's secularism law.

My question is simple. Is the minister going to wait until after the election to challenge Bill 21, for fear of alienating Quebeckers?

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, our position has always been clear. It is not up to the government or to politicians to tell people what to wear or not to wear.

Canada is already a secular country, and that is reflected in our institutions. We believe that this new law violates fundamental rights and individual freedoms. We will always defend the charter.

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, the government already dictates what people can and cannot wear. Soldiers, RCMP officers and prison guards all wear uniforms. Male MPs have to wear a tie in order to be recognized in the House of Commons. I do not hear the Minister of Justice objecting to those rules.

What is the real reason that the Minister of Justice wants to challenge a state secularism law that is supported by the people of Quebec?

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, we are the party of the charter. We have always defended the rights and freedoms it guarantees, as well as other fundamental rights of society. It is not up to the government or to a political party to tell people what to wear or not to wear. It is as simple as that.

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Beauce, PPC)

Mr. Speaker, free speech is the foundation of a free society, yet after erasing the statement of the member for St. Albert—Edmonton from the record, the justice committee proposed several measures to censure free speech on the Internet.

Does the government understand that the novel 1984 was meant to be a warning against the dangers of a totalitarian society and not an instruction manual?

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, free expression is something that we value in the country. He should also know that in the current context with online platforms, the limits of free speech, justifiable limits of free speech, is something that any government should be looking into, as the Prime Minister did when he was in Paris and looked at the Christchurch declaration.