44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 6, 2024 11:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:39:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize.
I was saying that the member for Mirabel, who is a bit of a rascal will go so far as to say that the NDP wanted to bring in dental insurance because they are spending so much time kissing the Liberals' feet that they are going to get a fungal disease. I would not say something so asinine. I think it is disrespectful, but it is one way to see who might be interesting.
When it comes to pharmacare, Quebec has been well ahead of the rest of Canada since 1996. No other province has really expressed a desire to have such a program. By all accounts, with the exception of Quebec, the rest of the Canadian provinces are ambivalent about having pharmacare.
The thing that upsets me most about this is that it is a prime example. The Liberal-NDP coalition is a prime example of “Ottawa knows best”.
Take the leader of the NDP, for example. A while ago, he drafted a letter to Quebec's minister of health. While he was writing his letter to Quebec's minister of health, he decided he would also contact Québec solidaire, the NDP's sister party in Quebec City. He therefore sent the same letter to Vincent Marissal, a Québec Solidaire MNA.
In his letter, the NDP leader told them that he was writing to explain why pharmacare was necessary. Talk about blatant paternalism. As I was saying, he wanted to explain why pharmacare was necessary. In Quebec, however, we have pharmacare already, of course, and we have made more progress on social issues than they have. Unfortunately for the NDP leader, he seemed to have forgotten at the time that Quebec already had pharmacare. Had he been a little more on the ball, the NDP leader could have asked his member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to contact the Québec solidaire MNA for the provincial riding of Gouin. Both of them are in the same office and in the same building. The member for Gouin could have explained to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie the finer details of this issue and the fact that Quebec already has pharmacare.
This is a prime example of centralizing federalism, or even what I call predatory federalism, which indiscriminately interferes in provincial jurisdictions.
As Quebeckers, we know that entrusting the development of our social programs to a neighbouring nation that does not have comparable coverage is out of the question. That would make no sense. Why would we entrust the development of our social programs to a government that cannot even manage its own jurisdictions? The French word for area of jurisdiction, “champ de compétence”, includes the word “competence”. When I think of the federal government, what immediately comes to mind is Phoenix, the passport crisis, its chaotic management of the border, immigration management without any real indication of acceptable integration thresholds, and ArriveCAN. The federal government is not doing a competent job of managing its own jurisdictions.
Despite that, the feds want to tell us how to manage our social assistance coverage in Quebec. Quite frankly, it is a bit insulting. Asking Quebeckers to let Canadians manage their social programs is like asking Canadians to let Americans manage their drug coverage. It would make absolutely no sense.
I want to point out something else that is rather important: Historically, the federal government has been unreliable when it comes to social intervention. A case in point is the occasion that members know I love to talk about, when Jean Chrétien, in a moment of clarity, admitted at the G7 that he could balance his budget by cutting transfer payments without ever having to pay a political price. The provinces are the ones who paid the price at that time. Let us all remember the drastic cuts that the Liberals made to health care after 1996-97, namely, $2.5 billion ongoing in 1996 and $2.5 billion in 1997.
Thus was born and introduced the fiscal imbalance. Who paid the price? Lucien Bouchard. Everyone said that the birth of neo-liberalism in Quebec began with Lucien Bouchard and the shift to ambulatory care, but that was certainly not the case.
I will conclude by reading the motion that was passed unanimously by the National Assembly. It was tabled in 2019, when pharmacare was first being proposed.
THAT the National Assembly acknowledge the federal report recommending the establishment of a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;
THAT it reaffirm the Government of Québec's exclusive jurisdiction over health;
THAT it also reaffirm that Québec has had its own general prescription insurance plan for 20 years;
THAT it indicate to the federal government that Québec refuses to adhere to a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;
THAT it ask the Government of Québec to maintain its prescription drug insurance plan and that it demand full financial compensation from the federal government if a project for a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan is officially tabled.
All parties agreed to sign the motion, including the Quebec Liberals for the Liberal Party. For our NDP colleagues, the Québec solidaire people also signed.
That explains why we will be voting against this bill.
896 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:45:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc party's position on the legislation does not surprise me. For separatist reasons, the Bloc does not believe in national programs. My issue is more with the Conservative Party's opposition to the legislation.
When listening to the speeches, Conservatives seem to acknowledge that the federal government has no role to play in health care. I would like to remind my Conservative friends across the way, as well as members of the Bloc, that there is a thing called the Canada Health Act. Canada does have a responsibility. A vast majority of Canadians, in all regions of the country, recognize that the federal government has a role to play in health care, and that goes beyond just handing money over to provinces.
We have the health care system we have today because the province of Saskatchewan kind of started it, but the federal government made sure all Canadians would be able to receive it. Would the member not acknowledge that, at the very least? Is that not a good thing?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:47:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is rather remarkable when you think of it. When the parliamentary secretary was asked whether he acknowledged that the federal government had a role to play in health, he said yes. In the same sentence, he said that its role was not limited to transfers of funds. However, the federal government does not manage any hospitals or any doctors. It wants to have a role in health but has no health-related expertise.
In the beginning, the health system was a 50-50 proposition. For every dollar invested in health, 50¢ was provided by the federal government and 50¢ by the provincial government. Today, the federal government provides barely 22¢. If the federal government was serious, it would invest more in health care than it offered, and it would address the criticisms of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Conference Board, who have stated that provincial finances will eventually become unsustainable because of skyrocketing health costs.
That is your role. It is not your role to meddle in jurisdictions that are not yours.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:48:08 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the member to address his comments through the Chair.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:48:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a place of debate. We are looking at complex issues and trying to find solutions that would better the reality of Canadians across the country. I believe and understand that bulk buying would allow the cost of medications to go down a lot.
Is there a way the member could envision a respectful process that really looks at us buying collectively, as a country, to see those costs go down, while also honouring the provincial distinctions?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:48:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if we want a robust system, then the simplest thing to do would be for the federal government to stay out of what is happening in Quebec, which is in negotiations with the large pharmaceutical companies.
What the federal government managed to do was to negotiate prices that are worse than what Quebec already had. That is one sign that the federal government does more harm than good when it interferes in areas that are not under its jurisdiction and puts together a poorly thought-out piecemeal program to score election points. That is what is happening here.
If the federal government wants to implement this program, then it needs to come to an agreement with the provinces first. That will help the government to avoid many pitfalls, to avoid wasting public money for absolutely nothing and to respect provincial jurisdictions, which is what we are asking it to do.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:49:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his arrogant comments that I must say were also ignorant, the member for Winnipeg North said that Ottawa supposedly has powers over health care. He cited the Canada Health Act, which is a manifestation of the federal government's spending power, which Ottawa, which has more revenue than it needs for its own responsibilities, is using to give itself the right to impose conditions on Quebec in Quebec's own jurisdictions.
I would like my colleague to explain whether this is a manifestation of the fact that Ottawa takes in more revenue than it needs to deal with its own responsibilities. I would also like him to tell me, once and for all, why this justifies Quebec having a right to opt out with full financial compensation for programs under Quebec's jurisdiction.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:50:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what a valid and interesting question. My colleague is absolutely right. The Séguin report demonstrated that best. Mr. Séguin, who was Quebec's finance minister, was not a sovereignist, but a federalist. In his report, he clearly demonstrated that the federal government's revenues are much higher and that its expenses are smaller, which means it is constantly putting pressure on the provinces. In the next few years, when there is a Conservative government, we are going to see transfer payments reduced, and it is the provinces that are going to be blamed. Such is the Canadian federation.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:51:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I commend my hard-working colleague from Jonquière on his brilliant speech. My friend is always a hard act to follow.
I wanted to begin my speech by talking about the Quebec National Assembly motion, but my colleague just read it, so I will not repeat it. I will simply add a little to the speech by my colleague from Jonquière, who rightly mentioned that a unanimous motion in the Quebec National Assembly means that all the political parties adopted it. It was not just the separatists, as the parliamentary secretary opposite claims. It was adopted by all the MNAs from across Quebec, including the members of the Liberal Party—the sister party to the federal Liberals—the members of Québec Solidaire, who have a lot in common with the NDP, and of course the members of the Parti Québécois, who have more in common with us. There are no Conservatives in Quebec, because Quebeckers do not vote Conservative, which is not bad news in and of itself. It is important to understand that all the political parties in the Quebec National Assembly asked for the right to opt out with full compensation. Based on that, it seems to me that the next step is simple.
I am somewhat disappointed with the answer that my NDP colleague gave earlier. I admitted quite candidly that I find it difficult to work with the New Democrats. On the substance, our values often closely align in that we want to take care of people and we are progressive-minded. It is on the form, the “who needs to do what”, that they differ quite significantly. The New Democrats want to trample on the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec and tell them what to do. When I talk about that, I am told that members of the Bloc Québécois should want Canadians to have pharmacare. Of course we want Canadians to have pharmacare. I want to make an important clarification. The Bloc Québécois is not here to hurt the rest of Canada. We are here to defend the interests of Quebec. If we can help the rest of Canada, then all the better.
We are not opposed to that. All we are saying is that, in the fine system the government wants to put in place, we want our fair share of the money. We are glad this is happening. It is long overdue. Once again, in terms of social programs, Ottawa is way behind Quebec. Quebec has had a similar program for 18 years. We are glad the rest of Canada wants pharmacare. Go ahead. All we are asking is that Quebec be given the money it is entitled to, because we already have a plan that works well. It is not perfect, but it works well. There is not a Quebecker today who does not have pharmacare. It is important to point that out. Quebec is ahead of the curve in this area, as it is in day care and plenty of other areas. I will make a list for my colleagues a little later. The point is that we do not need the federal government for those things.
That highlights, in big fluorescent letters, the Canadian problem with the fiscal imbalance. It highlights how toxic federalism is for the Quebec nation. The federation claimed that we should form an alliance and work together for the common good by establishing jurisdictions for the provinces and Quebec in order to respect the regional disparities and priorities of each province and territory, since priorities cannot be the same in Alberta and Quebec. The people of Alberta might make different choices when it comes to pharmacare and health care. That might happen and that is fine. They can do what they want. As long as they are getting the money from the taxes that they paid, then they are entitled to their own services. They can make their own choices.
Quebeckers have already made that choice. The government seems to be acting out of contempt, ignorance or snobbery. I am not sure which term to use. I think contempt is the most appropriate. We know that Quebeckers have been doing that for a long time, but since the government is under no obligation this time, it is going to go over our heads. It is going to steamroll over us. It will absorb our system and replace it with the great big Canadian system. An exception was allowed for child care, however. I would like the parliamentary secretary to talk to me about child care. How are things going with day cares? Are Canada's day cares in trouble because Quebec got the right to opt out with full compensation? I do not think so. Things are just better in Quebec's day care centres because we have a little more money now than before. That is all we want. We are not out to hurt anyone.
That being said, the legislation sets out some fine principles. It says it will respect the principles of the Canada Health Act. This program will be publicly administered. We like that it will be publicly administered because it is different from the dental care plan, which is being entrusted to a private insurance company. When things are subcontracted to private companies, we know what happens. We recently saw what happened with ArriveCAN, and we do not want to see that again. This waste of public money was atrocious. However, even if the program is publicly administered, if a federal system is imposed on top of Quebec's system, there will inevitably be friction and inefficiency. The government says it is going to come up with a list of drugs. Quebec already does that. Are the feds going to check our list? How will this work? If the federal Minister of Health or the committee comes up with a different list, what will happen then? That is what we do not want. We do not need it.
I will address the Liberals through the Chair, since the Speaker has specified that we cannot address other members directly. We do not need the Liberals to administer pharmacare for us. We have our own system, period.
The bill states that the federal government will have to provide financial support to the provinces through agreements. Could an agreement consist of the right to opt out with full compensation? Could Ottawa simply respect the fact that Quebec already has something in place, that we do not want to change it, that our system is working fine and that we would improve it if we had more money? Would that ever be possible? Unfortunately, that does not seem possible.
As for the federal government's role in health care, it comes from spending power. My colleague from Mirabel did a good job explaining this issue. The parliamentary secretary may find me too boring, but as I see it and as Quebeckers see it, the federal government's role in health care is to transfer money. Its role is to transfer money because the federal government gets roughly half the taxes but does not have half the responsibilities. We have repeated this so many times in the House, but it does not seem like many people are listening or else people simply do not understand. When I said earlier that we should be given the right to opt out with full compensation, it was taken as me saying that I did not want Canadians in other provinces to have pharmacare. We have never said that.
The bill also indicates that a committee of experts must be established within 30 days to look into the operation and financing of national, universal, single-payer pharmacare and to figure out how it could work. This will be done for the rest of Canada, because Quebec wants the right to opt out with full compensation.
I will warn my colleagues that my speech today will be repetitive. We want the right to opt out with full compensation because the federal government has no business interfering in this area. The bill does not in any way recognize what is being done in Quebec right now. It is barely mentioned. There is no recognition of Quebec's expertise, yet in their speeches, the government members are saying that Quebeckers were forward-thinking, that they are going to take inspiration from Quebeckers and that they are going to implement a similar system everywhere. Why would they do away with our system to implement their own? That is the logic.
I am a separatist; it is in my blood. I always end up talking about the fact that the federalist parties are unable to live up to the contract they shoved down our throats in 1982. It does not seem that hard to me. We are demonstrating our good faith. Not only did we disagree and not sign, but we are working within those confines because we have had no choice since 1982. When members of the Bloc Québécois sit in the House, we rigorously respect the institutions.
Despite that, when we asked for compromises on MAID, when we moved a minor amendment that would have put Quebec another 20 or 40 years ahead of the rest of Canada, socially speaking, we were told no. When we ask for the right to opt out with full compensation, we are told no, even by people who have been telling us all day that Quebec's jurisdictions must be respected. Those people voted against this proposal. The way they vote should reflect what they say during the day.
As for the proposal about the oath to the King, it would not have cost anyone anything. We were saying that we would respect a Constitution that we did not even sign. They said that even that was far too much, and on top of that, they sang God Save The King at us.
So be it. Let them keep attacking Quebec institutions.
We are going to get ready. In a few years, we will have a good debate, and when the federal government comes to us with its red flags, the decision will be already have been made and we will be independent.
1737 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:01:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am looking for clarification from the Bloc members. They seem to give the impression that prescription drugs are free in the province of Quebec. I would ask the member if he could, for clarity purposes, give an indication of whether people are charged any sort of deductible or fees.
Different provinces have different mechanisms. Some have private and some have public. I am wondering if he could expand on exactly what type of plan there is in the province of Quebec and how it applies, in particular for contraceptives.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:02:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is true that contraceptives are not yet covered. That is why we need money. We are going to improve our system.
Since my colleague is asking questions about how it works, I will quickly explain. We have a mixed system in Quebec. People who are not covered by private group insurance pay, if I remember correctly, between $0 and $731 in premiums per year, depending on their income. That is how it works for people in the public system. For everyone else, the employer deducts an insurance premium from the employee's earnings.
I should also point out that ours is the most progressive taxation system in North America. The tax rate is income-based. There is no better place in North America for that.
The Quebec system is certainly not perfect, as I said in my speech. However, we are going to improve it. All we have to say to the government is let us manage it on our own.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:03:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I studied the pharmacare system when I served on the Standing Committee on Health. The Liberals did not do anything until they introduced this bill.
The Quebec system has a list of drugs, a formulary, and I think it is the best system in the country. What does the member think about the fact that this bill targets only two drugs for this pharmacare system?
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:03:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intelligent question and for recognizing that Quebec's list is working well.
We have a good system, but it could be improved, as I mentioned earlier. That is why we want the money. We are often told by government members that we, the Bloc, see the feds as an ATM and that all we want is our money. Well, it actually is “our” money, since it is our citizens who paid the taxes, so, yes, we want our money in order to provide services to Quebeckers in our areas of jurisdiction.
To finish answering my colleague's question, the list could certainly be improved. We sincerely hope so. My biggest fear, however, is that the federal government will come up with a list that will likely be much worse than Quebec's, because when it comes to social issues, I am sorry, but Quebec is ahead of the curve.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:04:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I like my colleague a lot, but I find it hard to accept that the Bloc Québécois is refusing to listen to the people in Quebec who are in favour of this bill.
The Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, or CSQ, and the Fédération des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec welcome the introduction of this bill.
Luc Beauregard of the CSQ said:
Quebec's hybrid system, with a public plan and private plans, has not lived up to its promises. We think it should absolutely not be used as a model for the rest of Canada. It is a costly, ineffective and unfair plan.
Quebec's unions say that we must pass this bill. Why is the Bloc Québécois not listening to these voices in Quebec?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:05:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we can quote unions, too. The CSN is on the side of Quebec independence. I do not know if my colleague agrees with them on that point. I am guessing he does not agree with them on everything.
The unions know we are part of Canada for now, and they want more money so their members will be able to pay less for their medication.
When we meet with them and explain that if the federal government gets involved, there will be redundancy, it will cost more, it will be less efficient, and that it would be much better if we had our own money, I think that, at the end of the day, they agree with us.
We obviously place great trust in the members of Quebec's National Assembly, who have sent out a clear message.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to what members have to say about Bill C-64. In some areas, I am not surprised. In other areas, I am surprised. Let me provide a bit of an overview before I get into more detail.
When I think of pharmacare and the potential that pharmacare has for all Canadians, I think that we undervalue and underestimate the degree to which Canadians as a whole would support not only the concept, but also the implementation, of a true pharmacare program. This is not new for me. I have been talking about pharmacare for many years. I have been an advocate for it because I understand and believe in the benefits of a national program.
There is no province or territory in Canada that has absolutely free prescribed medications for its population. Everything depends on the province that one is in. It could be based on age or affordability, but there are all sorts of different variations. There is public sector participation and private sector participation. There is a wide spectrum, a smorg, of different ways that pharmaceuticals are being delivered in Canada. That is the reason I asked the Bloc member to provide more detail of the plan in Quebec. Someone will stand up to says it is free in Quebec, but this bill clearly demonstrates that it is not free.
Many would say that, if we have to pay a deductible or an annual premium, and if things are not in it that should be incorporated, it is not free. I am glad the member said that there is room for improvement. No matter what program we are talking about, there is always room for improvement. I suggest that the way we should be looking at the whole issue of pharmacare is to take a holistic approach to the expectations people have for health care in general.
I have said many times in the past how important health care is to all people in Canada, in all regions of our nation. That has not been lost on the government. The Bloc will say it does not want Ottawa to be involved, other than to hand out money. That particular attitude does not surprise me, and I will add further comments on that in a bit.
What really surprises me is the Conservative Party's approach to health care. It is demonstrated with Bill C-64. People need to be aware of this. At the end of the day, we value and treasure health care here in Canada. The Canada Health Act protects the integrity of the system in all regions. It is one of the reasons the federal government allocates the billions of dollars it does for federal transfer payments.
We have seen a national government and, in particular, a prime minister, our Prime Minister, who has taken a health care initiative, recognizing how important it is to Canadians. We are looking at ways to enhance it, to build a stronger health care system. Nationalized health care or the Canada Health Act are established, and many other countries today that have that form of legislation or that sort of delivery of health care have already incorporated a national pharmacare program.
One does not have to be a Liberal or a New Democrat to see the benefits of it. I used to be the health critic in the province of Manitoba, and I understand just how critical medicine actually is to our health care system.
We can think about it in the sense that, if a person gets sick and goes into a hospital, they receive medications in that emergency setting. I do not believe any province is actually charging for that. This is virtually universal now across Canada. It might be because of an ulcer issue, some sort of a bleed or any other need that might be there. If a person has to stay in a hospital facility for however long a time, the hospital staff does not say, “Well, here's a bandage. By the way, you're going to have to pay for that.” Or for medication, maybe a painkiller, they do not put out their hand, saying, “We want money before we inject the painkiller.”
However, the moment that person leaves the hospital, then it changes. This may not happen in every province, as some provinces might cover prescribed medications more than others, some might not charge as much, some will have a deductible and, as I said, some will have those annual premiums. What happens, generally speaking, is that the individual leaves the hospital and finds that now they are going to have to start paying for the medications.
I cannot tell members how many 55-plus facilities, personal care facilities or independent living facilities I have been to where they talk about the cost of medications, with diabetes being one of them. They will tell us, “Look, we cannot afford the medication.” As a result, I would suggest that there are many people who end up going back to hospitals because they are not getting the medications they require. This is because of decisions they have actually had to make in terms of buying and purchasing the medication versus food or possibly rent, or the amount of medications that are required and the bill that is associated with that. Those are the types of things that end up costing communities, society and the taxpayer a whole lot more when that individual ends up returning to the hospital because they were not taking the medications that were necessary in order to keep them out of the hospital facility.
The problem with the debate on the pharmacare issue is that I would have liked to hear more about, collectively as a House, seeing the value of this and that we want to move forward. This is what Bill 64 is doing; it is moving us forward on a very important issue. I would rather have seen everyone coming to an agreement that, yes, this is good stuff, we should be supporting it, and then adding value to that.
I think of Cardine, whom I met at a local restaurant on a Saturday. She was talking about the issue of the shingles vaccination and how this is something people should not necessarily have to pay for. I raised that with some of my colleagues.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I know it is not on the list. At the end of the day, some provinces, from what I understand, provide coverage for shingles vaccination for those 55 and over, or maybe 60 and over, whereas some provinces do not. However, I was suggesting, by bringing it up, that this is the type of discussion I would like to hear more about, but not in terms of how we keep Ottawa away from the issue of pharmacare or developing a national program. I do not think that is what our constituents want to hear. I believe they want to see consistency, where they can, in the different regions of our country.
I have presented many petitions in the House on the issue of pharmacare. I have consulted and talked about pharmacare at the door for years. I understand who has what kind of responsibility in health. As I said, I was a health care critic in the province of Manitoba.
However, I do not understand denying the opportunity for a federal government to participate in providing contraceptives or diabetes medications. I do not understand how opposition parties could oppose that, no matter what province they are from. Tell me a province, and I say that to all members, that provides any form of support for contraceptives today. I am not aware of any, but I could be wrong on that.
How could anyone say that the legislation would not be of benefit for all Canadians? It is a major part of the legislation. When we think of diabetes, we are not talking about a few hundred or a few thousand Canadians; we are talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadians who would be affected by Bill C-64.
What are opposition members afraid of? If they were truly listening to what people are saying in their communities, I would suggest that they should talk more about the issue of health care. I talk a great deal about health care in my riding. I understand why it is so important.
An hon. member: It's provincial.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, a Conservative heckles across the way, and she is consistent with other Conservative members who say it is a provincial responsibility. That is the attitude. We can remember, at the beginning, I said that the Bloc does not surprise me. I understand why Bloc members do not support it. It is a separatist party. It would just as soon Ottawa hand over the money, then Quebec would take the money and develop the programming.
In contrast, the Conservative Party thinks it is a provincial responsibility. People need to be aware, because it is the same as the member's off-the-cuff heckle. I would suggest that it is not just a provincial responsibility. If the member truly understood the Canada Health Act and, more importantly, her constituents, she would quickly realize that it is not just a provincial responsibility.
Even when I was in the Manitoba legislature, I argued and articulated that health care is not solely the responsibility of the Province of Manitoba. I like to think that, at the end of the day, all provinces have a responsibility to follow the Canada Health Act. When I talk to people about the pharmacare program and Bill C-64, it is a positive discussion. I have yet to hear anyone, outside the Conservative Party, tell me that Ottawa moving forward with respect to a national pharmacare program is a bad thing. I cannot recall anyone saying that we should not be doing this.
That might precipitate a few emails to me, but at the end of the day, I believe it is because people truly appreciate and understand the value.
That is why I said before the interruptions that one has to take a holistic approach to health care. Let us look at what has happened since 2015, when a new Prime Minister was elected and the agenda of health care started to change in a very positive way. It was not that long ago, and I referred to this earlier, that we actually had the Prime Minister in Winnipeg at a press conference at the Grace Hospital. My colleague would be very familiar with the Grace Hospital. At the end of the day, we had the premier of the province, the provincial minister of health, the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Health. We talked about the future of health care and how the $198 billion over 10 years would have a positive impact not only for today but for tomorrow, thinking of generations ahead. We talked about how it would impact the province of Manitoba.
Let us think about the number of agreements that have been achieved by the government with the different provinces and territories and indigenous community leaders, all dealing directly or indirectly with the well-being and health of people. Something that was missing previously was the type of financial commitment, along with the sense of co-operation. Then we look at the type of national programs that we would bring in, which would make a difference.
People talk about the dental program as an example. Having a dental program ultimately helped literally thousands of children over the last year, including children who would not have been able to see a dentist or get some of the dental work that they received as a direct result of a national program. There are actually children in the province of Manitoba who end up going to emergency departments because their dental work has been neglected. Moving forward with a dental program is a good thing.
We just came out with the national food program, where we are delivering more nutritious food for children throughout the country. Hundreds of thousands of children will actually benefit from the program.
That is why I said that health care is a lot more than just a hospital facility. People need to look at everything from independent living and community living to what takes place in our schools. They need to think in terms of the medications; the bill is about getting people talking about medications and the important role they play in health care. Along with that, I would suggest that there is a general attitude that says we are committed to the Canada Health Act and to making sure that we continue to provide the type of progressive programs that would complement the health and well-being of Canadians. That is the way I see Bill C-64. It complements the Canada Health Act, and people should not fear it. They should accept it and look at ways in which we can improve upon it.
We often hear about the issue of bulk buying, as an example, and the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been saved in that area. I would suggest that we could do even more. I look forward to seeing the ongoing debate on this very important issue. I would hope that my Conservative friends, in particular, would revisit their positioning with the idea of getting behind the legislation and voting in favour of it.
2275 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:26:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, not too long ago, at the beginning of this year, there was a shortage of Ozempic, which is a medication diabetics take. For some diabetics, this was the only type of medication that would help them with their particular condition. There was a shortage and there was not enough to go around. With the government in charge of deciding who will get this life-saving medication in the event of another shortage, because there will be one, how will the government decide who lives and who dies?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
