SoVote

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/6/24 9:05:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Does my colleague think that the pharmacare system they want to put in place will be ineffective if the government gives Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation? What is that going to change given group purchasing is already happening? The group purchasing argument no longer holds water. There is no other argument. Why not respect Quebec's will? The member does not live that far away. He must have some understanding of Quebeckers. I would like to have a nice honest answer to that.

93 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

May/6/24 9:06:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will suggest to the member that this is an incredible opportunity for us, as a federal government, to work closely with provinces and territories. We have much to learn from Quebec. The member for Winnipeg Centre mentioned a few things earlier in her debate. Quebec has been a pioneer and a leader, whether it is pharmacare or child care. We have an opportunity to work with each other, to learn from each other and to replicate the models that work best for all Canadians. Our federation works best when all orders of government, in this case, federal and provincial governments like that of Quebec, are working together to find solutions for all Canadians, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere.

123 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/6/24 9:07:21 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to ask my colleague about Canada's placement in the world regarding subsidized or free contraception. More than 25 countries worldwide, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, have offered subsidized or free contraception since as far back as 1967. I wonder if the member can respond by giving us his views on why it is so important for Canada to join other countries regarding this important legislation so that we can ensure better protection for women.

82 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

May/6/24 9:08:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the member for Nunavut, along with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, for joining me on Sunday in support of Christie Lake Camp, which is a worthy organization in Ottawa, in my community, raising $20,000 to support kids from priority neighbourhoods. I must say the member for Nunavut is an excellent basketball player, so it was a great afternoon. I agree with the member that we need to catch up with many countries that allow for free contraception. It is about the autonomy of women. It is making sure that women are able to make decisions about their own lives. By passing Bill C-64, we will take the very important step of making sure that Canada really values women and gives them the autonomy they deserve as equal citizens.

141 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/6/24 9:09:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to give a shout-out to the Abbotsford Rugby Football Club, which won the provincial championships over the weekend. The division 1 side has faced a lot of adversity. Our fields were flooded during the big flood in Abbotsford a few years ago. This team has really built back. Big congratulations go to Coach Chambers and all members of the squad on the game-winning kick by Mr. Rowell. Congratulations to all the boys for their accomplishments. Now, I turn to Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare. As my colleague, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, said in the House in April, the half-baked pharmacare plan being debated is truly about preserving the costly NDP-Liberal coalition. In order to ensure that the coalition survives the next fixed election date, so many members can lock in their pensions, the NDP has agreed to a pharmacare plan that covers only two categories of drugs, while costing a billion and a half dollars and adding even more bureaucracy and gatekeepers to the already extremely bloated federal government. There are 97.2% of Canadians who already qualify for some form of prescription drug coverage. It is important that we work to ensure that the 1.1 million Canadians without coverage can access pharmacare, but the proposed system would leave them woefully under-insured and no better off. In the context of British Columbia, we already have coverage for contraceptives through our provincial government. What we have in front of us today is not a universal pharmacare system, as the NDP-Liberal government has been campaigning. It is a diabetes medication and contraceptive coverage system. The member for Ottawa Centre just said in his speech that in 2028, diabetes alone will cost the medical system in Canada over $40 billion. Even the money put forward in this bill is only a drop in the bucket, and I wish the members of the NDP-Liberal government would come clean about misleading Canadians about what they are doing, because all of us have had constituents come to our offices and ask when the universal drug coverage will kick in. I am sorry to say that it will not; this is a PR exercise by this government, and it is shameful. Canadians know how much a promise from the Prime Minister means, and it is not very much. This is the same Prime Minister who promised to balance the budget, or rather, that it would balance itself. This is the same Prime Minister who promised a $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer that is yet to be delivered. This is the Prime Minister who promised British Columbians a universal day care system at $10 a day. Good luck trying to find that in our lifetime. This is the same Prime Minister who promised that interest rates would stay low for a very long time, right before spending more money than any government in Canadian history and driving interest rates higher than they have been in decades. This is the same Prime Minister who has led to all of our GST payments, on every purchase we make in Canada, solely servicing the federal debt. Let that sink in. Every time we buy something, the taxes that we pay are only paying for the mistakes of the member for Papineau. The only goal of this bill, as we all know, is to appease the NDP and avoid an election the government knows it would lose. Speaking of the New Democrats, they really ought to be ashamed of themselves for even agreeing to this plan. For decades, they have campaigned on a single-payer pharmacare system, and now that they finally have a sliver of power in this Parliament, they fold and accept a half-baked plan that would cost taxpayers billions while failing to provide coverage for the vast majority of medications Canadians rely on, which the NDP promised to deliver. Shame on them. The leader of the NDP loves to say that he will win the next election and often starts phrases with “when I am Prime Minister”. If he truly believed what he was saying, why does he continue to prop up that failed government, and why did he agree to this plan, which fails to cover the vast majority of drugs and treatments? If they are going to do it, they should go all in and take a risk. They are not willing to take a risk, because it is just about covering their own butts and getting their pensions. The bill could have negative—

775 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/6/24 9:14:06 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

May/6/24 9:14:12 p.m.
Watch

I fully acknowledge that I said the leader's name, but I also know that we cannot say things like saving “butts”. That is my understanding, and I am just pointing that out. If he could take that out—

42 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/6/24 9:14:21 p.m.
Watch

We just need to be careful in the words we are using. The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is rising on a point of order.

29 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/6/24 9:14:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I find the members' words very violent, but I will—

14 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/6/24 9:14:33 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/6/24 9:14:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the point of order from the hon. member seems quite prudish. I thought we heard earlier that we should be willing to more openly talk about certain things, but the member gets called out for saying the word “butt”, which I have never heard called unparliamentary before. I wonder whether there is a new standard of prudishness that the NDP is trying to set—

69 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/6/24 9:15:03 p.m.
Watch

I do not want this to descend completely into debate.

10 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

May/6/24 9:15:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member of Parliament probably could have finished eating his taxpayer-paid supper before coming in here. However, I would appreciate—

29 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/6/24 9:15:22 p.m.
Watch

This has descended completely into debate. I am standing up and I have the microphone. I am done on this point of order. I will just give a reminder to be judicious in the words we are using. The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

48 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/6/24 9:15:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I take that comment, and I take the comment from the member for Winnipeg Centre. I will say “to save their epidermis”. There we go. The bill could have negative consequences for the 27 million Canadians who rely on private insurance. The non-profit insurance sector has serious concerns about its future should Canada pursue a single-payer pharmacare system. Providers like Blue Cross could be wiped out entirely. As usual, the government tabled the bill without consulting a single stakeholder in the private and not-for-profit insurance industry. Killing private and not-for-profit insurance would be devastating for millions of Canadians. Across the country, private coverage is, on average, 51% more extensive than provincial public counterparts. When a new drug is approved by Health Canada, it takes an average of 226 days for private insurers, including Blue Cross, to approve its coverage. Public plans take an average of 732 days after Health Canada approval to add the drug to the list of covered treatments. Canadians with serious health conditions that require drugs and treatments that are only just going through the approval process in Canada cannot afford to wait another two-plus years after Health Canada approves them. Today, more than six million Canadians are without a family doctor. A half-baked public pharmacare system would do nothing to change that and to address their needs. Rather than spending another $1.5 billion setting up a system that would not cover the vast majority of medications, the government should be focusing on ways to support provinces in the recruitment of new doctors and nurses. That is why Conservatives have proposed a national blue seal program. This program would ensure that when a foreign-trained doctor or nurse arrives in Canada, they could quickly apply to have their credentials recognized and would be given an answer within 60 days as to whether they could practice in Canada. Once approved, they would be able to work in any province that signs on to the federal plan. Right now, a doctor licensed in Ontario cannot practice in Nova Scotia. A nurse licensed in B.C. cannot practice in Manitoba. It is time to change this anachronistic system. In closing, the program would not be a universal pharmacare program, and it would not do anything to help the 1.1 million Canadians without access to pharmacare coverage nor the 6.5 million Canadians who cannot even see a doctor. It would be yet another expensive bloating of the federal government, adding more gatekeepers and more debt for Canadians to pay for while delivering next to nothing. I would add that, in a riding like mine with a large indigenous population, it would not be accessible to indigenous Canadians or rural areas either, because the amount of money is simply not enough to do even what the government says it is going to do. After nine years, the only drugs the government has been able to deliver are hard drugs, like fentanyl, heroin and meth, which are flooding our streets and killing thousands every year. Conservatives will bring home the doctors and nurses our health care system so desperately needs. We will axe the tax. We are going to build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime to lower the cost of living for all Canadians. That is what they want us focused on. I encourage all members to support the amended motion put forward by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, dispose of the bill before us and start working to actually address the serious problems in health care across Canada.

606 words

Ms. Lisa Hepfner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.)

May/6/24 9:19:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think I heard the member opposite say that the people in his riding do not want this pharmacare plan. They do not want their diabetes medication or pharmacare for reproductive health to be covered. It sounds to me as though he is more concerned about the insurance companies and how well they are going to make out after the legislation goes through. Is that the case?

69 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/6/24 9:19:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe Hansard will show that I did not say that my constituents do not want the legislation. However, what my constituents do want is access to drugs in a timely way. If we were to adopt universal drug coverage in Canada, it would lower the standard and accessibility of drugs for private insurance programs. This includes the program that all public servants are on right now; it would lower their ability to get the drugs they need to keep them healthy. I do not know why the member for Hamilton Mountain is against public servants having access to the very drugs that keep them healthy.

108 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/6/24 9:20:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be studying a bill on pharmacare, yet we have addressed every issue under the sun since the evening began. We even debated abortion, in terms of who is for it or against it. I keep asking the same question over and over, but I get no answer from the Conservatives. If it ever comes to power some day, will the Conservative Party support Quebec's right to opt out with full financial compensation when Ottawa creates programs in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, yes or no? Yes or no, do the Conservatives support the right to opt out with full financial compensation?

108 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/6/24 9:21:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for his question. If a Conservative government is elected, I would like Quebec to keep its jurisdictions, just as I would like British Columbia to keep its jurisdictions. The Conservative Party wants open federalism that respects the jurisdictions of Quebec and British Columbia.

57 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/6/24 9:21:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I found one part of the member's speech particularly interesting, and that was the blue seal program. The way I understand it, if he explained it correctly, is that it is a federal program in an area that is currently provincial jurisdiction. Doctors who obtained this blue seal would be able to practise their craft in any province that signs up for this federal program. It sounds an awful lot like other federal programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction, where we have a federal program with federal funding and provinces can sign up for it. Why is there this double standard when it comes to interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction?

114 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 309