SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/6/24 6:05:58 p.m.
Watch

Is there consent? Some hon. members: No.

7 words

May/6/24 6:06:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we generally do not interrupt speeches, so I would hope that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley could start from the top.

30 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/6/24 6:06:22 p.m.
Watch

This is not the first time that an individual has been stopped during a speech. The hon. member still has nine minutes and 16 seconds to continue. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

35 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

May/6/24 6:06:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

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

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

May/6/24 6:15:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things I find most perplexing about this entire debate is that not only are Conservatives against this bill, but it is as though they are actively rooting for its policy failure. It is like they are downplaying how many dentists have signed up. They are downplaying the impact this would have on Canadians. They keep saying that only one out of every five Canadians wants this, as though it is not a good thing to do something when one out of five Canadians wants it. I wonder if the member can make sense of all this, the fact that Conservatives are not just against the bill but are actively rooting for the failure of this program.

121 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/6/24 6:17:17 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the hon. member that he is not to call a member by his first name or his last name; however, “hon. member” is fine. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

41 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

May/6/24 6:17:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was struck by the member's comments about someone needing to go for a colonoscopy and not being able to afford the prep. I have heard this in my riding as well. I have heard it in regards to dental care also, that they are not being able to pay the $5 or $10 to go to dental care. I would just ask the member if he could share how important it is that people have basic access to medication to stay proactively healthy.

87 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

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

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

May/6/24 6:19:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, those at home watching this may be wondering who does not want this. This is child care 2.0. However, the reality, as we know, is that, like this morning, there was a British Columbia mother who was saying that she was going to be homeless because she cannot find child care. I just had a text from a dentist. I asked them what they thought of the dental program. The reply was that it is an absolutely amazing election slogan. That is exactly what has happened here. My question to the member opposite, who props up the Liberals continuously, is this: Why does he think the Liberals will actually deliver this? It is almost abusive to watch what they do to the NDP because they will not deliver what they said they would. My question is this: Is he okay with that?

145 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

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

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

May/6/24 6:21:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He shared such amazing points today about the importance of looking after Canadians. I am standing today, as a woman in Parliament, discussing one of the most important aspects of women's health and daily life: access to contraceptives. This health care measure is currently restricted by whether one can afford to access it or not. It should not be that way. Every time I enter this place, I am aware of how different my experiences are from the men who have not had to deal with regular menstrual cycles, painful periods, ovarian cysts, PMS and PMDD, endometriosis, menstrual migraines and unintended pregnancy. These are part of daily life when one has ovaries, starting in one's teens. Having ovaries requires management and affects everyday choices for school, work, recreation and more. With that in mind, I am going to take a moment to read a poem by my daughter Coral. She is a writer and a poet. I wanted to share it because it shows how periods affect women, girls and non-binary people, from their very early teens. It is called Late Bloomer. In the seventh grade, all my friends started menstruating, but not me. We would travel in a gossiping group to the school washroom and I would listen as my friends ripped tape inside stalls. In high school, we had swimming in gym. I had a hard time with a box of “easy applicators”. I cried, one foot propped up on the toilet. I lied on the ground, tried to raise my hips and contort my body to be comfortable. The garbage filled with failure. I surrendered to pads. Diapers, my friends called them. I would hide panic as girls exchanged tampons in cute pink wrappers. Once a pad fell out of my bag, I snatched it up, cheeks shame red. I concealed pads far up sleeves and deep down in pockets. On days I forgot a pad I settled for folded tissues and tied my jacket around my waist. Today, I borrowed a pad from a stranger. Her cheeks weren't red and neither were mine. bloom, bloom, bloom “Bloom, bloom, bloom” is how I see this bill. It is time to blossom. It is a bill that sets in place a framework to consider the needs of women, girls and transgender people who menstruate. My message to the men in power across the globe, including in Canada, who have spent their legislative time trying to control women and their bodies, while ignoring the enhancements that are there in basic health care, is to stop it, and let this bill bloom. At a time when the possibility of gender equity remains elusive, what gives me hope is that in this bill, and currently in the tabled budget, the needs of women are starting to make their way onto the main stage, after 150 years. Affordable child care, free contraceptives, the red dress alert from my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, a caregiving strategy and a sectoral table on care economy are all women's issues that the Conservatives and the Liberals have ignored for decades. With that in mind, that is what causes me worry. The Conservatives in the House are rejecting these important advancements for women and, at the same time, are working against us by espousing that they would override women's charter rights on a whim. Conservatives are dangerous to women. If they ever had the power, they would immediately go after a woman's right to choose, just like what has happened in the United States. I never want to see that happen. Not only would Bill C-64 help women as a framework for historic expansion of health care to single-payer pharmacare, but also the first rollout would give access to life-saving medication and devices for diabetics. Linda, a resident in my riding, recently told me she estimates that, since she was diagnosed with diabetes over 40 years ago, she has spent over $120,000 on medication and devices to manage it. This is unfair. She has had to spend thousands of dollars a month just to stay alive. While I am on the topic of gender equity, Linda shared that she was 26 when she was diagnosed. She went to the doctor. She was single at the time, and the doctor said to just go find herself a husband, and she would be fine. This is what happens when someone cannot afford their medication or when society decides that women should not have economic empowerment and that they would not be able to afford their medication on their own. Even with the loss of the life of a diabetic, if they do not get their medication, the Conservatives have decided to block the pharmacare bill. While they enjoy their MP taxpayer-funded health care and dental benefits, they deny them to others who need them. With the new pharmacare bill, New Democrats know that Canadians would have the access to medication that they need, not with a credit card, but with a health care card. This would mean that close to 10 million Canadians would not have to suffer in pain and discomfort, would not have to put their health at risk and would not have to let their conditions get worse. This would no longer have to happen. The reason the Conservatives and the Liberals have let it happen in the past is profits from big pharma, as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned. It is about trying to keep big pharma happy, not about trying to keep Canadians healthy. We need to do the work to keep Canadians healthy, to make sure we do preventative medicine and to release the burden of the expenses of contraceptives, diabetic medication and other medications as they come out. This is why we must pass the bill as quickly as possible. People are waiting on us, and the provinces are ready to come together and make life better for people. The NDP has gotten this victory for Linda, for all women, and for people who use contraceptives and have not been able to get access to contraceptives. All those people will be able to get access very soon, and it would roll out to be even more. They would be able to keep the money in their pockets rather than in the pocket of some rich CEO. I want to close and to double down on the fact that this is not the time to let our guard down as Canadians and as the NDP. This is not the time to let our guard down. Ideologies south of the border are coming up into Canada. There is a conversation in the House, and the Conservatives are trying to open a conversation about removing a woman's right to choose. They are using bills like this pharmacare bill around contraceptives to have that conversation. We cannot let it happen. Also, for all Canadians, who are paying some of the highest drug prices in the world, this is not fair, and this is legislation. This is because of the Conservatives and the Liberals before, who have let big pharma take advantage of Canadians, gouge Canadians and made Canadians sicker because of their lack of compassion and their desire to control a woman's body.

1245 words

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

May/6/24 6:29:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing the poem by her daughter. I think it is very special. We have come a long way, because there was a time, I can certainly remember, when talking about menstruation cycles and so on was very taboo. Here we are in the House of Commons, and we can talk about it. We need to talk about it because contraceptives are a very important priority for the pharmacare act that we are discussing tonight. I would like to hear from my colleague because she alluded to this. For people who are not insured or who may be working but are under-insured and still cannot afford the care they need, could she tell us about the stigma that can surround vulnerable groups when they are seeking proper medical care?

136 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

May/6/24 6:30:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think about those who have episodic health conditions where they might go to work on a regular basis but have episodes. One I think about is debilitating menstrual migraines. A lot of teenagers go through this, and they do not necessarily have access to medication for that. Lots of teenagers who go to university are no longer on their parents' plans, or they do not have a plan and cannot get access to this. I know a number of young women who have come through my home, as I have three daughters. They have suffered because they could not afford access to any kind of medication for their menstrual headaches. It is unbelievable. They cannot work, and they cannot go to school. It takes them out of the workforce, and it takes them out of their school time. It is really not fair, and that is just because of the price of medication.

156 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

May/6/24 6:31:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to put on the record that the best thing we can do for women is to give them financial autonomy and make life affordable so that they can make the choice to leave an abusive relationship. Under the Liberal-NDP government, domestic violence is up 72%. The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association has stated that the bill “will spend billions of dollars unnecessarily on drugs for people who already have coverage.” With a cost-of-living crisis, and an inflationary deficit where people cannot afford to live, is the hon. member okay with this wasteful spending?

103 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

May/6/24 6:32:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that just magnifies my point. It made me think about the fact that the member here wants to control what women can have. Women can have this, but they cannot have that. We want them to go out there and work. There is a saying that says everyone should live like that, but then the Conservatives say that nobody should live like that. What I am saying is that there should not be a choice between women only having a little bit of this, but are not being given that. In Canada, every Canadian deserves to be able to fulfill their life in work, in school and with family. Whatever their choices are, they should be able to fulfill them. Pharmacare is a fundamental piece of that, not just on contraceptive and diabetic medication, although we are starting with those two, but with all kinds of medications that keep people alive in this country.

158 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/6/24 6:33:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, and I want to share a secret: I find it difficult to sit with the NDP members. I should start by saying that, for the most part, they are very nice and I get along well with them. Our values are very similar. The problem is that they are not sitting in the right Parliament. The notion of areas of jurisdiction seems abstract to them. They cannot seem to grasp that concept. Perhaps it is because they are not from Quebec and they do not understand that, in Quebec, the Quebec government plays a greater role in people's lives than other provincial governments. I find it difficult because we often find ourselves voting differently, even though we share the same values and agree on the fundamentals. The question I would like to ask my colleague is this. Considering that, through the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, the matter of group purchasing to reduce drug costs has already been settled and therefore that argument does not hold water, would my colleague still be able to sleep at night if the government were to say that Quebec has the right to opt out with full financial compensation, that everyone has pharmacare and that everyone is happy?

216 words

Quebec

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

May/6/24 6:34:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have stood many times in the House to say how wonderful it was and is to raise children in Quebec. There is access to many programs that are not available across the rest of the country. I have spoken before about the access to swimming lessons, diving lessons and sports, which are all affordable and accessible in Quebec. Everyone should have access to those types of life-changing and family-changing opportunities. I think there is always a way for the Bloc to come and want that for everyone in Canada.

94 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

May/6/24 6:35:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I hope I do not embarrass him over the next ten minutes. I am not sure if my colleagues heard the Prime Minister when he said that people, and I am quoting him because I do not speak this way, could not care less about jurisdictional bickering. That is what the Prime Minister said when asked about pharmacare and dental insurance. A recent Leger poll shows the opposite, that 82% of Quebeckers hope that the federal government will respect provincial jurisdictions. What is more, 74% of Quebeckers believe that Ottawa should get approval from the Government of Quebec before implementing programs like pharmacare and dental insurance. Let us settle this right now: People do care about jurisdictions. They care because they know full well that the federal government falls short when it comes to supporting social programs that fall outside its jurisdiction. Let us set that aside. I would like to come back to something that seems rather important: Does Quebec society need the federal government to implement social programs? Is Quebec society lagging behind the NDP and the Liberal Party in social democratic matters? I have to say no, it is not. The best family policy in North America is in Quebec. The most generous family policy is in Quebec, with parental leave and child care, which the federal government tried to copy 20 years later. Quebec is the least expensive place in North America to get a post-secondary education. Quebec is the most generous in terms of loans and grants for post-secondary education. Quebec also has the most progressive tax system. Quebec's inequality index is 0.31, as measured by the Gini coefficient. This compares favourably with Sweden's index of 0.29. If we look at Canada, we see that Canada has an index of 0.37. This is pretty close to the United States, at 0.42, which is one of the worst in the G7. Quebec no longer needs to demonstrate that it is a very generous society when it comes to social programs. I am going to say it again, although I am certain my colleagues have been saying it all day: We already have pharmacare in Quebec, and while it is not perfect, it does exist. Furthermore, Quebec is in the process of trying to make the program meet Quebeckers' needs more efficiently. Why are we studying a federal bill to introduce pharmacare? Is it so the Liberals can maintain their coalition with the NDP? Of course it is. My colleague from Mirabel, who is a bit of a rascal, frequently says that dental insurance was put in place because the NDP is kissing the Liberals' feet—

475 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/6/24 6:39:12 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but there seems to be a telephone near his microphone. It is bothering the interpreters. We must ensure their health and well-being. The hon. member for Jonquière.

37 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 309