44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 6, 2024 11:00AM
- May/6/24 4:05:17 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 4:05:17 p.m.
- Watch
I request a recorded division.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 4:48:31 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion carried.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Sport; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Carbon Pricing.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, to highlight two major concerns. The first is the federal government's intrusion into matters of provincial jurisdiction, and the second is budgetary concerns.
This neo-liberal initiative, which came from the Liberal-NDP coalition, raises serious concerns because of its impact on provincial jurisdictions. During its nine years in power, this Liberal government has not even been able to properly and competently manage its own files. How, then, do the Liberals think they can get away with interfering in provincial health care by imposing Bill C‑64 on the provinces, including Quebec, which has been offering Quebeckers its own pharmacare program since 1997, so for nearly 30 years?
Instead of continuing to overstep its boundaries by interfering in provincial affairs, the government should focus on matters within its jurisdiction, such as managing passports, fighting crime, fixing the immigration system, which it broke, and cutting inflationary taxes. These are just a few examples of areas where it needs to direct its attention and energy, instead of investing time and money in provincial matters.
A pharmacare program is not a program that should be set up at the federal level. That is a provincial responsibility. This arrogant, pretentious government wants to impose its science when it totally lacks the authority to manage this type of file.
Was this pharmacare program designed in close co-operation with all provinces, territories and indigenous peoples? Was it developed following a thorough review of what already exists in each of these areas of responsibility? Is it the result of thoughtful consultation with experts and stakeholders? We know the answer: Of course not.
We have here a shameful attempt by the Liberal government to stay in power thanks to the support of the NDP. The Journal de Montréal's Yasmine Abdelfadel writes, and I quote:
Make no mistake: Justin Trudeau has sold his soul to the NDP. The New Democrats are the ones who are really in power, the same New Democrats that did not have the support of the public in the last election.
This initiative seems well intentioned, but it is not. Because the Liberals only hold a minority, they found a dance partner, the NDP, which is keeping them in power in exchange for the implementation of various measures that the New Democrats care about, like dental care and pharmacare, the issue that is before us today.
Canadians did not vote for that or for the NDP. Only 17.7% of Canadians supported this far-left party in the last election.
Also, Radio-Canada notes that neither dental care nor pharmacare were part of the Liberals' election platforms.
Despite what they want us to believe, this pharmacare bill is therefore no reflection of the NDP-Liberal coalition's benevolence toward Canadians. It is mere political and electoral theatre. To suggest otherwise is to lie to Canadians.
Now, getting down to dollars and cents, this pharmacare plan, as proposed, would generate massive costs, a concern that seems to have been glossed over, if not completely ignored. In a report published on October 12, 2023, the Parliamentary Budget Officer wrote the following:
...we estimate the incremental cost to the public sector (that is federal and provincial governments combined) to be $11.2 billion in 2024-25, increasing to $13.4 billion in 2027-28.
I would remind the House that the Parliamentary Budget Officer thinks the total is going to reach $40 billion.
I find it hard to trust in the current government's ability not only to implement an effective pharmacare program, but also, and more importantly, to maintain it over the long term. A government that has proven repeatedly since 2015 that it cannot maintain a balanced budget and is fiscally incompetent does not exactly inspire confidence.
I think it is worth reminding the people watching at home that the national debt has doubled since the Liberals came to power in 2015. It now stands at $1.255 trillion. I also want to remind everyone that since we have to borrow money to pay for the Liberals' reckless spending—because they are spending money they do not have—we are also paying interest. The interest on this unbelievable debt is $54 billion. That is more than the total amount of health transfers to the provinces, and it is the equivalent of all the GST paid by Canadians. This money is being thrown away to pay for the creation of programs that already exist.
Access to medication is a major concern for Canadians, which is why it is imperative that we carefully examine the viability of such a program, so as to be absolutely certain that it will last over the the very long term. More than anything else, it is hard to justify creating such programs, which would require additional bureaucracy and uncontrolled spending, when the vast majority of Canadians, four out of five, or 80% according to Statistics Canada, already have drug coverage in their respective provinces, coverage that is even broader than what is proposed in Bill C‑64.
Here is what Quebec's health minister, Christian Dubé, had to say to La Presse:
Not only is the government refusing to give us the money we asked for in federal health transfers, but it wants to interfere in an area of Quebec jurisdiction. The federal government knows full well that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction. We've had our own drug insurance program since 1997. It's been nearly 30 years. We also probably have the broadest drug coverage of any Canadian province.
By the way, he also pointed out that 45% of Quebeckers are entitled to drug insurance coverage through the public plan and that 55% of Quebeckers have private insurance. Guess what? Fifty-five per cent plus 45% equals 100%.
The federal government has caused countless crises in Canada since coming to power. Canadians continue to be both witnesses and victims of this incompetence every day in things like immigration, passports—we are starting to see lineups again—the correctional system, the use of food banks or the lack of affordable housing across Canada. Do my colleagues know that since the Liberals came to power in 2015, the public service has grown by 40% and hired 100,000 public servants?
I am going to quote a sharp mind on the subject of bureaucracy. I would not bet that he is a Conservative. Listen to this:
Like a black hole, it can also absorb astronomical budgets without leading to an improvement to public services.
Look at the Phoenix pay system, the chaos in immigration management, the ArriveCAN saga, the passports saga, the airports saga, etc. Despite the huge amounts of money squandered on new programs administered by an armada of public servants and the gigantic debt it has run up, the [Liberal] government's incompetence at delivering effective services to the public continues to defy expectations.
That is a quote from Boucar Diouf.
I want to close by quoting Gérald Filion, an economics journalist who is very well respected in Quebec. In his opinion, the government is creating a lot of programs and economists are concerned about the impact that will have on Canada's credit rating. The creation of many expensive programs that must be maintained in the future means additional spending.
All of the provinces offer coverage, particularly Quebec. We therefore recommend that we not go forward with this bill because we cannot afford it right now with this government's reckless spending.
1277 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 4:59:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on September 21, 2010, when my colleague was a minister in the Charest government, Le Soleil published an article that said, “the Charest government was hoping that Ottawa would recognize Quebec's right ‘to opt in or opt out of federal financial initiatives’ and that, if it decides to opt out, it would receive ‘full compensation’”.
The member voted against the Bloc Québécois's subamendment, which called for exactly the same thing that she was calling for when she was a minister in the Charest government. I listened to her speech and it seems as though she has changed her mind again.
What is her final position on Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:00:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what is clear to us is that the economic situation in Canada right now is very precarious, even worrisome. We have a government that spends money hand over fist. Canada's debt has doubled since 2015 and public debt charges are up to $54 billion. That is money that is being thrown onto the fire. It is not being used to help Canadians. That money is being given to bankers because we are spending too much here in Canada. It is therefore a very bad idea to implement a pharmacare program when the vast majority of Canadians and all Quebeckers already have drug coverage.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:00:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are three million people across our country living with diabetes, and they pay about $18,000 a year out-of-pocket. This is going to make a big difference for those folks, especially knowing that they are going to have the devices as well.
This is the first step in a model that I really believe in, which would result in collective purchasing. Any Canadian would know that, when we buy collectively, prices usually go down. Of course, that is why Canada pays the second- or third-highest medication rates on the planet.
Does the member have any thoughts on the hopefulness of the people who will finally get medication they can afford?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:01:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is just wishful thinking. I read the bill carefully. There is nothing specific in it and everything remains to be done. No agreements have been reached with the provinces and a list of drugs has not yet been compiled. All the bill says is that a strategy will be developed and a committee of experts will be set up.
This is just pure politics, completely partisan politics. As I demonstrated in my speech, the only reason this minority Liberal government proposed the pharmacare and dental care programs was to stay in power. It is supported by the NDP, which said that the Liberals had to bring in a pharmacare program to stay in power. Let us not kid ourselves this afternoon. That is the Liberal government's real motivation, and it is a national disgrace.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:03:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are offering it under a Westminster parliamentary system that is multiple centuries old. The member is talking about a minority government as though she has never even come close to understanding what happens in a minority. I am sorry if the NDP figured out how to actually get things done on behalf of Canadians while Conservatives would rather just yell and scream all day long about what they wish would happen; clearly, they do not use any kind of ability to act like adults in this room to get things done on behalf of their constituents.
Very simply, if Conservatives are going to be voting against this, is it safe to then say that they would remove this program if elected into government?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:03:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals put on quite the spectacle. Pharmacare was not even part of their election platform. As a minority, they rely on their NDP friends to keep their hold on power, sometimes with help from their Bloc Québécois friends too—we must not forget that. Then they turn around and criticize us for supporting or not supporting measures that they never raised with Canadians themselves. They cozy up to the NDP, which received only 7.7% of the vote in the last election, and have the nerve to lecture us. We are not going to take that.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare. I am extremely excited to talk about this, because this is a very important program, another transformative initiative for Canadians. We are again supporting Canadians. We can think back to 1968, when we brought in medicare. We knew the Conservatives were against it then, and the Liberals brought it in; today, no one wants to get rid of medicare, because of its importance.
In this speech, I will be talking about the framework on pharmacare and also talking about diabetes and the three million people with diabetes, and how difficult it is for them. Also I will share some information about the pilot project we have been running in P.E.I., which has given us some information, as well as where we sit in the G20 when it comes to health care and drug care. Finally, I will talk about all those initiatives the Liberals have brought in, which are helping Canadians today and in the many years forward. It was the Liberal Party that brought those.
Let me start off by saying that this act is focused on certain drugs that we would bring forward, and related products.
Of course, my colleague will be joining me afterwards. I will be sharing my time with the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.
To continue, we are talking about certain drugs, such as contraceptives and diabetes medication. Again, as I said, there are over three million people with diabetes in Canada. Back in December 2023, we created the Canadian drug agency, and its focus is on three major areas. One is a formulary, which is putting up a list of all the drugs that would be included in this pharmacare program. Another is bulk purchasing. As some have mentioned already, we have already saved millions of dollars, and there are billions to be saved through that process, which will continue. Third, we will be publishing, of course, appropriate use of medication in Canada.
I also want to say that once this legislation is passed and receives royal assent, within 30 days the minister will appoint a committee of experts to make recommendations within a year, so that we can move on this as quickly as possible.
When I go to get some medication at the drug store, my pharmacist often tells me, “You have to do something for people with diabetes. The cost is unbelievable. Many Canadians are facing a cost they cannot afford to pay. You need to come forward with some type of initiative.” I am so pleased to be here today to talk about that.
In the last decade, we have seen a doubling of the number of people facing challenges with diabetes, which is extremely important. Today, 3.7 million people are living with this. If we do not do something to help them, 25% of those people have indicated that they cannot afford to pay for that medication. If we do not treat that disease, we know what some of the end products would be, and they are not very good. We are talking about blindness. We are talking about amputation. There are all kinds of challenges that come with that.
Just for insulin, for type 1 or type 2 diabetes, the cost can range anywhere between $900 and $3,000 or $4,000 a year, which is extremely high. The good news is that we are going to work with the provinces and territories and have a deal, so that they can have frontline services for these individuals.
Diabetes Canada said, “We are very pleased with the government's commitment to prioritize improved access to diabetes medications and devices. This monumental step demonstrates a genuine dedication from our political leaders to enhance the well-being of the over four million individuals living with diabetes in Canada.”
For example, last year in June we started a pilot project in P.E.I., and from that pilot project we have seen the medication costs drop by over 60%, helping the residents of P.E.I. In a very small province, they have already saved up to $2 million, out of pocket. That is extremely important, and when we talk about affordability, this is another step forward that our government is bringing to the table.
Where do we sit in the G20? Well, it is important. People ask why we are bringing this in. We are bringing this in because we probably should have brought it in before, but the time is now. We are the only country in the G20 that has health care insurance but yet does not include drugs. The U.K. has included some prescription drugs. Australia has a mixed formula of private and public. France has, of course, a health care system and is now paying significant portions toward drugs. There are other countries in the G20 that have some type of pharmacare, including Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, etc.
According to a CBC article, “the federal Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare, led by Dr. Eric Hoskins, stressed how people's lives can suffer if they skip needed prescription drugs, and noted a Canada-wide program could eventually lead to system-wide savings of nearly $5 billion annually.” When they talk about how much it would cost, we could actually save up to $5 billion. I think that is also a very easy answer as to why we should move forward.
When I talk about our government, the values and ideology of the Liberal Party have always been to tighten up the gap, help the most vulnerable and make sure that all Canadians have opportunities to be successful. Let us look at some of the things that we brought forward: 1968, medicare; 1969, the Official Languages Act, making both languages the official languages of Canada; 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which all Canadians should be very proud of. Some of the opposition members are hesitant today on some pieces of the charter and we will see where they go with that piece.
There is the new and improved universal child benefit. When the Conservatives had it, it was 30% to 40% less and it was taxable; now it is not. There is the new and improved CPP, in 2019, which went from $11,400 a year to almost $20,000 a year. Those are programs that are helping every Canadian. These are opportunities. This is what makes Canada great. This is why people want to move to Canada.
Let me speak about some more initiatives that we are bringing to the table. The national school food program would help over 400,000 young people. The new disability program would help over 600,000 people with disabilities, who we know comprise most of the individuals living in poverty. Those are major initiatives to help. We are also building the dental care program. Nine million Canadians would have access to the dental care program. These are big numbers. There are many Canadians who have challenges, and our government has been focused on how to support the individuals facing those challenges.
I am going to end with something that Canadians must listen carefully to. If the Conservatives ever came to power, what would they cut? They do not want to tell us. They say “a dollar for a dollar”, so if there is a deficit of $40 billion today, we know they are going to cut $40 billion tomorrow. That we already know; we just do not know which programs. Therefore, I am going to ask the Conservatives. Would they cut pharmacare? Would they cut dental? Would they cut the disability benefit for people with disabilities? Would they cut the school food program that we have been talking about for 20 years? Would they cut the CCB, which is helping young families? Would they cut the early learning and child care program? I do not know. I am sure the Conservatives do, and I would love for them to share that with Canadians.
1362 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:14:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin my intervention, I want to recognize the life of Albert “Bert” Malfair. He was a father to a young woman I went to school with. He bravely served the RCMP to the point where he was chasing robbery suspects and was ultimately disabled from that in 1984. We are grateful for him. He recently passed away, and I pass my condolences to his family. May perpetual light shine upon him.
When my colleague gave his speech, he just so casually threw around the number of a $40-billion deficit. It has gotten that bad. That was a government that said it would have modest deficits and the budget would balance itself, and what has it done? It has spent, spent, spent. What do Canadians have to show for it? They have nothing. They are now struggling even more with heating and eating.
How does the member say these numbers so casually, $40 billion, $50 billion, $60 billion? We are spending more now on servicing the debt than we are on health care.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:15:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the difference between my colleague's party and our party is that they spend and we invest. We have invested in Canadians since 2015. Do members know why we can afford to invest? We can afford to invest because we have an AAA rating, one of only a few countries in the G7—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:16:02 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I cannot hear the hon. member, so let us try to keep the ruckus down a bit.
The hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:16:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, inflation has been brought safely down to 3% by the Bank of Canada, our prime rate is among the lowest ever in the history of Canada, and we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. What else do they want? We are in a good, solid position to invest, and we are going to continue to invest for Canadians.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:16:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I do not understand: Why is it difficult to provide for the right to opt out with full financial compensation? Everyone would be happy. Those who want in, stay in. Those who want out, take the money and do their own thing.
It is not going to lessen our desire to be independent, but it may make us less angry with the Liberals when we do get our independence. That is all there is to it. It is not complicated.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:17:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a Canadian is a Canadian. We have a program that is there for Canadians, and we are going to make sure that Canadians are respected in every province and territory, including Quebec. We are very proud to work closely with our colleagues, and we will continue to do so.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:17:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about the cost savings in terms of this program. Of course, this goes right back into medicare and our health system.
The direct cost associated with unintended pregnancies here in Canada is an estimated $320 million, so the benefits of universal contraception do not just end unwanted pregnancies with prevention and cost savings, but can actually help in terms of prescription contraceptives for other health conditions like abnormal uterine bleeding and endometriosis, precancer of the uterus, polycystic ovary syndrome and the prevention of ovarian and uterine cancer.
Can the member talk about the importance of seeing those benefits and the cost savings to our system as well, in addition to the health of people who need that support?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:18:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, often, it is not about throwing more money. There are ways of changing how we do things so that the end result of the investment is to supply and support more Canadians by investing less.
There are cost savings. We already talked about the cost savings with bulk purchase, which are in the billions of dollars, and there are more cost savings to be had in other areas that the member mentioned as well, such as contraception, etc.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:18:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I find it funny that the Conservatives were laughing when the member said that we are investing while they are spending. They laugh as though it is some kind of joke. Let us not forget that Tony Clement had money to spend on the G8 and used it to build gazebos in his backyard. Conservatives' memory is so short-term.
The reality is that the member is absolutely correct. We are investing in Canadians. We are investing in the future. We are asking those who make the most to pay a little bit more in order to keep those investments going. Would the member agree with me on that?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
