SoVote

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

The Deputy Speaker

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

Mr. Darrell Samson

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

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

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

Mr. Darrell Samson

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

Quebec

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

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

Mr. Darrell Samson

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

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

Mr. Darrell Samson

May/6/24 5:19:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is 100% correct. We are not investing in gazebos. We are investing in pharmacare, dental care, a disability benefit, a school food program, CCB and early learning. We continue to support Canadians. That is why people want to move to Canada. They are proud of our great—

52 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/6/24 5:19:57 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.

11 words

Ms. Anju Dhillon (Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Lib.)

May/6/24 5:20:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity today to speak to Bill C‑64, an act respecting pharmacare. This bill represents the next phase of our government's commitment to a national universal pharmacare program. It proposes the foundational principles of national universal pharmacare and our intent to work with provinces and territories to provide universal single-payer coverage for many contraceptives as well as diabetes medications. This is an important step forward in improving health equity, affordability and outcomes, and it could save the health care system money in the long term. Public health care in Canada was built on the promise that no matter where one lives or what one earns, one will always be able to get the medical care one needs. Despite this promise, Canada is the only country in the world with universal health care that does not provide universal coverage for prescription drugs. When medicare was first introduced, prescription drugs outside of hospitals cost less and played a smaller role in health care. Today, prescription drugs are an essential part of our health, helping to control chronic conditions, treat temporary ones, and aid in overall health and well-being. One area that has seen significant changes is diabetes treatment. Over 100 years ago, thanks to a Canadian team of researchers, Frederick Banting, Charles Herbert Best, John J. R. Macleod and James Bertram Collip, insulin was discovered. Since this monumental scientific discovery, there have been several advancements in diabetes treatment, from the introduction of fully synthetic human insulin to glucose monitors and insulin pumps. These breakthroughs have immensely improved the quality of life for people who have to live with diabetes, enhancing self-esteem, increasing social participation and improving the overall health and well-being of these individuals. They have also come with higher costs, creating affordability challenges for Canadians affected by diabetes. Outside of hospital, prescription drug coverage comes from a mix of private insurance, out-of-pocket cash payments and various provincial programs. While the majority of Canadians have access to some form of public or private insurance, about 2.8%, or 1.1 million Canadians, do not have access to private or public drug coverage. Although most Canadians have some form of drug coverage, this does not mean that those with insurance have equal access to the prescription drugs they need. The existing patchwork system of private and public drug plans leaves millions of Canadians under-insured, and that means their out-of-pocket prescription drug costs create a financial burden that leaves them struggling to afford an essential part of health care. In 2021, Statistics Canada found that more than one in five adults in Canada reported not having the insurance they needed to cover their prescription drug costs. Being under-insured can take many forms, for example, Canadians may have high deductibles, resulting in significant out-of-pocket costs before their insurance coverage even kicks in. They may reach the maximum annual or lifetime coverage limits for their insurance and have to pay out-of-pocket, or they may have to make co-payments, which are often 20% of the drug's cost on private plans and sometimes more on public plans. All provinces have drug coverage to protect Canadians from catastrophic drug costs, but deductibles under these plans can range from 0% to 20% of net family income. In many cases, Canadians will never reach the deductible, leaving them without any support for their drug costs. This variability across the country creates a postal code lottery. Let us consider the advancements in diabetes treatments. For a working-age Canadian with no private insurance, out-of-pocket costs vary widely. In some parts of the country, out-of-pocket costs for people living with type 1 diabetes can be higher than $18,000 per year out-of-pocket; for type 2 diabetes, they can be higher than $10,000 per year in out-of-pocket expenses. Even those with private insurance can face high co-pays or exceed annual plan maximums, resulting in high out-of-pocket costs. Even for cases in which an individual is not accessing devices that cost thousands of dollars, they can face significant out-of-pocket costs. For example, we can consider a woman in her mid-twenties who is working a minimum wage job. An IUD, one of the most effective forms of birth control, can cost up to $500 with no insurance. Even with private insurance, a co-pay of 20% would be $100. While IUDs can last from three to 12 years and save money over the long term, the high upfront cost can make them inaccessible. Under-insurance can be a particular concern for young adults who age out of their parents' private insurance but who do not have their own form of private coverage. Lower-income Canadians also make up a disproportionate share of the under-insured. While most provinces have put in place drug coverage for those accessing social assistance benefits, a gap still exists. Many lower-income households that do not qualify for social assistance continue to struggle with out-of-pocket prescription drug costs. Employment factors contribute to differences in insurance coverage. People with low-paying jobs, such as entry-level, contract and part-time positions, often report less adequate drug insurance coverage. This may even discourage people from accessing social assistance benefits or from applying for jobs, because once hired, they may lose their public drug insurance coverage. However, many entry-level and part-time jobs do not offer drug benefits. One study found that only 27% of part-time employees reported receiving medical benefit coverage. Under-insurance can have serious consequences. Many Canadians with high out-of-pocket costs report foregoing essential needs, such as food and heat, or not adhering to their prescription due to drug costs. Statistics Canada found that, in 2021, close to one in five Canadians spent $500 or more out-of-pocket for their prescription medication, and almost one in 10 reported not adhering to their prescription medication because of costs. This includes delaying filling prescriptions or skipping doses to contain costs. When people do not take their prescription drugs the way they are supposed to, their health can suffer. This results in serious consequences for the individual and their household, and unnecessary costs to the health care system in the long run, as patients are more likely to visit an emergency room or to be admitted to hospital when they do not receive consistent treatment. For example, the full cost of diabetes to the health care system in 2018 was estimated to be around $27 billion and could exceed $39 billion by 2028. I think we can all agree that no Canadian should be put in a position where they must choose between the prescription drugs they need for their health and well-being and putting food on the table. This is unacceptable, and it is why we are continuing our work to improve accessibility, affordability and appropriate use of prescription drugs as we move forward with national universal pharmacare.

1183 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

May/6/24 5:29:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague is a member from Quebec. The members of the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously requested a right to opt out of the pharmacare program with compensation. This means that we are not opposed to Canada having its own program. They say that as Quebeckers, we have the expertise and experience in social programs, we definitely do not want this program to be managed like the borders or the passports. We want the federal government to give money to Quebec and let Quebec manage its own affairs. If the others want to keep this program, we have no problem with that. We respect that. Does my colleague, as a Quebecker, agree with the position of her national assembly?

124 words

Ms. Anju Dhillon

May/6/24 5:30:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, I am a proud Quebecker. Our program is going to help millions of women, people from various backgrounds and people with diabetes. It is going to help everyone, all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

36 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/6/24 5:31:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, members have spoken a lot today about the money saved by individuals and the money saved by the system, which we could reinvest into health care. By providing free contraception, an individual is said to have a lifetime savings of up to $10,000, which is huge. I would like to hear more about the larger issue. How can this piece of legislation itself, through contraception, empower women and those who menstruate?

74 words

Ms. Anju Dhillon

May/6/24 5:31:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have been talking a lot throughout our speeches, as have all our colleagues, about how we are investing in Canadians, and this is an investment. There is a saying that it is better to prevent than to cure. This is one of those times when we could prevent, for example, botched procedures or when women have to go out of their way to do things to protect themselves and to make sure there are not unwanted pregnancies. This national pharmacare program would help women and those who are gender diverse to be able not just to cure but also to prevent. It would make sure that they have optimal health and that their well-being and mental health are being taken care of at the same time.

130 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

May/6/24 5:32:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks with great interest, particularly around the risk of people being uninsured. I am not sure everyone always realizes what that is and what it means until they get into trouble. I would like to hear her speak more on the different vulnerable population groups who could be working but who could be under-insured.

63 words

Ms. Anju Dhillon

May/6/24 5:33:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it would be surprising to most Canadians to learn that there is a huge under-insurance problem in this country. Many people, we could say, slip through the cracks. As I mentioned in my speech, for those who are part-time workers, who end up getting phased out of their parents' health insurance plans and for those who are taking social assistance, there is always a gap between the two insurances. We need to make sure that everybody is covered and that every Canadian is treated equally. It is all about equality and equity. This is how those gaps can be prevented. As my hon. colleague from London—Fanshawementioned, it is important for women to be able to take care of themselves. It should not matter what one's income bracket is. One should be able to access contraceptives and these services in order to create a more equal society.

153 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

May/6/24 5:34:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to speak to Bill C-64. Before I go any further, I would like to let the Speaker know I will be splitting my time with my good friend and colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain. The debate today is about Bill C-64, an act regarding pharmacare. At least everybody is being told that is what it is about. I would rather call it, I guess, the so-called pharmacare bill because I think that “the cost of keeping the Parliament going bill” is probably a name that has already been used. This bill is very tepid. It is not a national pharmacare program. This is actually just a piece of legislation that is meant to check a box to keep a supply and confidence agreement in place. To the NDP members, I cannot believe they actually think this is the pharmacare bill they envisioned. I have not met a program the NDP members would not want to nationalize, but they say it is a very sad day when one— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

188 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/6/24 5:35:43 p.m.
Watch

There seems to be some cross discussion from one end of the chamber to the other. I see it is in front, so I apologize for that. I just want to say that it is disruptive when someone is trying to speak. It disturbs them, so I want to ask members to please be respectful. The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe has the floor.

66 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

May/6/24 5:36:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64 Bill C-47 Bill C-368

Madam Speaker, there is a joke going around that says, “It's not knowing that a politician can be bought; it's knowing how little they'll let themselves go for.” For a member of the NDP caucus right now thinking that this is the misery they are suffering in the polls, the misery they are suffering nationwide, which is the same misery Canadians are suffering, this is all they managed to get out of the supply and confidence arrangement with the government today. It is not a pharmacare program. Health care is actually a provincial jurisdiction. It should be delivered by the provinces. The bill would simply be adding contraceptives and some diabetes measures into it. I guess, on the surface of it, that is a good thing, but to the tune of $1.5 billion. If viewers watching at home actually believe this is all it is going to cost them, I will remind them that the government bought a $7 billion pipeline and built it for about $40 billion. Therefore, if history is any predictor of the future when it comes to what things cost under a Liberal-NDP coalition, then they should be looking at least to that example if not more. To us, as Conservatives, the issue is one of provincial jurisdiction. I come from Alberta, and this is a very important issue to our province and to our premier. This is just another intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. We think that, during these financial times, when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, pouring more fuel on the inflationary fire is certainly not going to help. It is another financial albatross in the making, which Canadians cannot afford and are not willing to pay for. It is not just me saying this, and it is not just Conservatives saying this. John Ivison eloquently stated in a piece that he published back on February 29, when the bill or this notion first came out, that this is “the woebegone child of a loveless Liberal-NDP marriage.” This is basically what we are dealing with. It has become clear to me that the bill before us is basically the cost of keeping the NDP support for this Parliament under supply and confidence, and the coalition partners can take this until October 2025. It was supposed to be October 20, but it is going to be extended by another week to make sure that certain people here get the financial benefits they think they are entitled to. However, it just goes to show that there is only one serious opposition in the House, and that is the Conservative Party. The NDP is not an opposition party but a willing accomplice to everything that the Liberal government has in its agenda. Its members have been witting partners in creating a massive inflationary deficit; setting restrictive policies towards, for example, lawful gun owners and natural health products, which they signed up for two years ago without even knowing they were going to vote in favour of that in Bill C-47 last year; impeding upon provincial jurisdiction time and time again, which is, of course, front and centre with this piece of legislation; continuing to cover up for the government's scandals, covering for it at committee and also here in the House of Commons; introducing soft-on-crime legislation or supporting that soft-on-crime legislation, which has turned our justice system into a revolving door; sending Canadians to food banks en masse, at a couple of million visitors, which is up over 300%; allowing housing prices to skyrocket; and neglecting our military to the point where our soldiers are basically relying on food donations while they are in Ottawa for training. I could continue, but I think members get the gist of what I am trying to say. It is bad enough that NDP members backed budget after budget and shut down our work to hold the government to account at committee, but they are telling Canadians that they are doing their actual work as an opposition party. Well, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot be in opposition while they support everything that the government does. I do not buy it, and neither do Canadians. A December 2023 Leger poll indicated that only 18% of Canadians listed the establishment of a national pharmacare program as a health care priority, and the promise was not included in the 2021 Liberal platform. Canadians did not vote for a party promising pharmacare, yet here we are, thanks to an NDP party that is keeping this weak and basically lame-duck government in office. It is no wonder that some provinces are already saying publicly that they are choosing to opt out. Let it be known that the absence of the NDP as an opposition is also keenly felt in other areas. Just last year, as I was mentioning, the NDP-Liberal coalition passed Bill C-47. I do not suppose anybody in the NDP was told, when they signed on to this supply and confidence agreement back in March 2022, that they would be asked to regulate natural health products in the same way as therapeutics, but they did it anyway. As a matter of fact, they made that commitment a year before the bill was passed, and it is going to basically shut down our supplements and natural health product industry when they are classified and rebranded as pharmaceutical drugs. What did the New Democrats do when this came up for debate? They backed the budget instead of forcing the government to remove those four little clauses from Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. They had a chance. They could have flexed their muscles and said they were not going to support the budget implementation act unless the government removed them, but no such request was forthcoming, and the bill passed. It has caused unforeseen chaos in the natural health products and supplements industry across this country; consumers, of course, are rightly worried. In response, I had to table my own private member's bill, Bill C-368, to reverse these changes. This is just part and parcel. New Democrats say one thing to Canadians but actually do another. Could anyone imagine such a thing as being the House leader of the NDP, for example, standing up and saying time and time again how much one does not like omnibus legislation, and yet gleefully passing Bill C-47. The NDP House leader has said this for the 18 years that he and I have been in the House together. However, he told the government that New Democrats would continue to pass every budget and every budget implementation act henceforth after March 2022. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot stand up and say New Democrats are going to hold the government to account while continuing to give it the keys to the house to do whatever it wants. In the case of natural health product governance and regulations, New Democrats tell Canadians they are against omnibus legislation and that they are keeping the government accountable. However, as I said, they voted for Bill C-47, threw that industry into turmoil and then criticized me for giving them an off-ramp on the Bill C-368 debate last week. I was giving them a pathway to redemption, and all they could do was basically blame Stephen Harper for the mess that the country is in. I cannot even make this stuff up. The most common questions I get from Canadians are these: When are we going to have an election? Who believes anything anybody in the NDP has to say anymore, when their actions are completely 180° opposite from what they say with their words? It should also be highlighted that the bill was introduced with no public consultations whatsoever, which comes as no surprise to Conservatives. This piece of legislation has been pushed from a government with a terrible record on transparency. It is a government that regularly rushes massive changes with little regard for those people the changes may impact. It talks about the intended consequences, but it never fully understands the unintended consequences of the things it does, which is why we are in the mess we are in today. The Conservative position on Bill C-64 is that the Liberals know this project is an expensive boondoggle. That is why they abandoned it in their 2019 election promise. Even former finance minister Bill Morneau noted in his book that a single-user system would cost an additional $15 billion a year. We cannot believe the $1.5 billion number, and that is why my colleagues here on the Conservative side and I will respect provincial jurisdiction and vote against this piece of legislation. We encourage New Democrats to change their ways before their party actually fades into oblivion forever.

1491 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 309