44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 6, 2024 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.
In this debate this evening, we can lose a bit of the context, and that context is the historic nature of the legislation before us. I am so proud to rise on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and speak to Bill C-64, an act that will lay the groundwork for Canada's first national single-payer universal pharmacare system, a system that is going to help millions of Canadians, including many people in northwest British Columbia. The case for this bill is—
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his timely intervention.
This is a proud and historic moment because Canada stands alone in the world as the only country with universal health care that does not have some form of universal coverage for prescription medication, and the case for this bill and the case for pharmacare are exceedingly strong.
One in five people in this country have zero or poor medication coverage. Nearly a million people cut their spending on things like groceries and heat so that they can afford medication, and one in five households have a member who did not take the medication they were prescribed because of the cost of that medication. This is something that profoundly affects the lives of the people we represent, and I am surprised, to be frank, that there is not unanimity in the House to try to expand our health care system in this way and to get people the help they so desperately need.
I will tell a really brief story. I held a meeting on pharmacare, which had attendance by nurses and health care folks in northwest B.C. and concerned citizens. One of the nurses told this story about patients she sees come into the hospital for a very routine procedure, a colonoscopy, which is something that many of us will be getting in order to detect what can be really life-threatening illnesses. I have not had one of these procedures yet, but I very much look forward to it.
In preparation for this procedure, people have to take a medication in advance that allows this procedure to take place. That medication, at the time, cost about $40. For many of us, the cost of a $40 prescription to get ready for an important procedure is something that is affordable. However, the nurse said she was surprised by the number of patients who came in for this scheduled procedure, went home with the prescription and never came back for the actual colonoscopy because they could not afford the $40 for the medication.
That is what we are talking about. What happens to those people? They are not getting a diagnostic procedure that could save their lives, and some of them, a percentage of them, are getting sick and ending up back in our hospitals and in our emergency rooms. They are having to have surgery and some of them are losing their lives all because they could not afford medication that was not covered under our health care system. That is shameful and it is something that we in the House can change. We can change it today by voting for Bill C-64.
Why would anyone oppose the bill before us? We have heard some of the arguments and, frankly, it is somewhat surprising. I was listening to the member for Red Deer—Lacombe extolling what he sees as all of the various problems with it. Then he got to the fact that it would cover diabetes medication and devices, and he said something like, “on the surface of it, that is a good thing”.
This bill would be incredibly positive for a lot of people, yet we see opposition. We also see a cynical critique of the legislation, and that critique goes like this: The Conservatives say that the NDP and the Liberals call this a pharmacare bill, but it is nothing of the sort. They say that it does not go nearly far enough, and Canadians who are expecting this wonderful vision of pharmacare are going to be disappointed.
When Canadians hear that, they are going to think that the Conservatives want something even better, that they want coverage that goes even further and that would help more people, but no. What the Conservatives are proposing is to get rid of this legislation altogether and not to improve it one iota. The Conservatives have brought forward an amendment to kill it outright. That is not contributing to the conversation. It is not going to make people's lives better in this country. With all due respect, it is a cynical critique of the bill before us.
It is also incredible that in the Conservatives' opposition to pharmacare, they are parroting many of the same lines coming from big pharma. We have heard that most people will be worse off under the pharmacare program. We heard from the Conservative leader that most people already have coverage through their employer, and we heard that this law is somehow going to prevent people from getting their own private insurance. It is incredible that Conservatives and big pharma are sort of harmonizing in the same beautiful key of total nonsense. It is incredibly frustrating because none of this, of course, is true. This is a program that is going to help millions of Canadians.
We hear that health care is a provincial jurisdiction, yet nothing could be further from the truth because it is shared jurisdiction. If we look at the Canada Health Act on the federal government's own website, it clearly lays out that, while the provinces are responsible for health care delivery, the federal government is responsible for setting national standards and, of course, for funding health care, in part, through federal transfers. Therefore, this is very much in the federal government's wheelhouse and something I believe the federal government has a moral and a practical responsibility to fulfill.
However, despite all of this opposition from Conservatives to pharmacare, we are here on this historic day to move this bill through the legislative process and make it a reality. This is a bill that, among other things, enshrines the step-by-step implementation of single-payer universal pharmacare in our country, for the very first time, in accordance with the principles of the Canada Health Act. It is a bill that forces the government to develop a list of essential medications within a year of this bill's passing into law. It is a bill that establishes an expert committee that is going to guide the implementation and the financing of pharmacare right across the country.
I am very pleased that not only will this bill lay the groundwork, the foundation, for universal pharmacare that covers a wide range of prescription medications, but it is starting in its first phase with two major classes of medications that are going to help a lot of folks who are struggling with the costs. People in the House know what those two classes of medications are.
First is contraception, which can cost people upwards of $200 a month, and disproportionately that cost is borne by women in our country. When it is not affordable for people, they are forced to make other choices, but sometimes they do not have choices. Ensuring that people have affordable contraception is going to improve the lives of so many people.
The other class of medications is diabetes medications and devices. Anyone who knows someone who lives with diabetes knows the incredible out-of-pocket costs that can come with managing the condition. Diabetes Canada approximates that the cost of type 1 diabetes is upwards of $18,000 a year, out of pocket, and for type 2 diabetes it is upwards of $10,000 per year, out of pocket. These are the out-of-pocket expenses that our constituents are paying. With the bill before us, as soon as agreements are struck with the provinces, this program is going to cover those costs for Canadians, and I could not be prouder for having been part of the process of making that a reality here in Canada.
I am going to leave it at that. I know that the constituents I represent want this bill. I know the health care professionals who work in our health care system recognize the importance and significance of this bill. I hope everyone in the House of Commons votes for this bill and passes it unanimously into law as quickly as possible.
1337 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:16:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in many ways they are rooting for big pharma, whose incredible profits are threatened by the idea of the bulk purchasing that would be enabled under a universal pharmacare plan. The hon. member across the way's question made me think about what it would be like to be debating the Canada Health Act in the House of Commons in 2024, and what arguments Conservatives would bring forward against the idea of every Canadian having the dignity of basic access to health care. I think we are very fortunate that the act got passed all those years ago, in the late 1960s, before I was born, maybe before he was born—
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Yes.
Mr. Taylor Bachrach: Yes, we are the same age, Mark.
Now we have a chance to expand it to include pharmacare, and I think this is a wonderful opportunity.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:18:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is something I did not have time in my speech to get to, but the reality is that when people are able to take the medication that their doctors prescribe, they are often able to get better. When they get better, that means they are not showing up at the doors of the emergency room. They are not ending up in hospital beds for long hospital stays. We know that it costs $1,000 a day to have someone in our hospitals, and these are all costs that are borne by our system.
The bill before us is about making people's lives better, first and foremost, but also, when we look down the road at public pharmacare, universal pharmacare, we see that it is going to save our society, as a whole, billions of dollars through bulk purchasing and through allowing people to lead healthier lives. I think that is a huge, positive move in the right direction.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:20:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, pointing out the shortcomings of health care programs is an argument to make them stronger, not to gut them and to get rid of them altogether.
However, I will ask my colleague this question: Looking forward a year from now, when her constituents in Kawartha are looking west to British Columbia and are seeing that their fellow Canadians are getting their diabetes medication, their diabetes devices and their contraception provided for free under universal pharmacare, how is she going to explain to her constituents that they are not part of that program because her province did not get on board because she did not support it?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 8:21:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we heard several times this evening from Conservatives talking about child care. If we look at how that legislation came about, which is something the NDP pushed for for years, it was eventually written into legislation and passed in a very similar format to pharmacare, and it required the participation of provinces. We heard all sorts of opposition from the Conservatives, but what we saw is that provinces, one by one, came on board. Now, we see the same thing with pharmacare.
I am just wondering if the member can project on whether we are going to see, over the coming months and the coming year, as agreements are signed with British Columbia and Manitoba, that other provinces are going to have a hard time explaining to their people why they do not get free contraception and free diabetes medication, and slowly they are all going to sign on to a national universal pharmacare plan. Is that how it is going to roll out?
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 9:21:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I found one part of the member's speech particularly interesting, and that was the blue seal program. The way I understand it, if he explained it correctly, is that it is a federal program in an area that is currently provincial jurisdiction. Doctors who obtained this blue seal would be able to practise their craft in any province that signs up for this federal program. It sounds an awful lot like other federal programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction, where we have a federal program with federal funding and provinces can sign up for it.
Why is there this double standard when it comes to interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
