SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24

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

Mr. Brad Vis

May/6/24 9:22:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with respect to the blue seal program being a double standard. In Canada, immigration is a shared jurisdiction. Right now, many of the doctors who come to Canada, through our federal points system, do not have access to the professions that allowed them to enter Canada in the first place. The basis behind our plan is to make sure that, when we accept someone into Canada through our immigration system, we are actually doing what we said we were going to do, which is to allow them to contribute in the profession of their choice to make Canada a stronger and more vibrant nation.

109 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

May/6/24 9:23:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon began his speech by outlining how widely covered medical care is for both diabetes and the pill. They are already widely covered in that they cover so many voters. Would the bill not be more aptly called “farm a vote”?

53 words

Mr. Brad Vis

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

Mr. Speaker, farm a vote; I agree. I would like to thank the member from the Ottawa Valley for her question. The bill is solely to ensure that the NDP and Liberal government can maintain their working relationship. Unfortunately, the NDP members did not stand up for what they believe in and what they promised their voters in the last general election, which was universal pharmacare. They are selling themselves short with the legislation, because they are not afraid to face the electorate.

83 words

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

May/6/24 9:24:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this opportunity and all opportunities to speak in the House on behalf of the residents of Hamilton Mountain, particularly with respect to this very important piece of legislation, which is necessary to help millions of Canadians who are struggling to pay for their prescription medications. We have heard lots about access to and the affordability of prescription drugs in Canada. Statistics Canada data from 2021 indicates that one in five Canadians reported not having insurance to cover the cost of prescription medication in the previous 12 months. The same Statistics Canada data also found that a higher proportion of new Canadians reported not having prescription drug insurance coverage. Having no prescription insurance coverage was associated with higher out-of-pocket spending and higher non-adherence to prescriptions because of cost. This results in some Canadians' having to choose between paying for these medications and paying for other basic necessities such as food and housing. We likely all know someone who is struggling with this issue. Members may know someone, or maybe have heard stories about a person with diabetes who does not have insurance coverage through work and has to pay for their insulin, syringes and test strips out of pocket; a student who had insurance coverage up to a certain age through their parents and then lost that coverage; or a cancer patient who does have insurance but is still not covered under their plan for the type of medication they need to treat their cancer. That is why we have introduced legislation based on the principles of accessibility, affordability, appropriateness and universality. These principles will help guide ongoing efforts to advance the implementation of national pharmacare. We need pharmacare that helps make prescription drugs more accessible. This includes improving the consistency of access to drug coverage and needed medications across the country. We also need pharmacare that helps make prescription drugs affordable. This includes reducing financial barriers for Canadians, such as deductibles and copays. Additionally, we need pharmacare that helps ensure that the prescription drugs that people are taking are appropriate. This includes getting the right drug to the right patient at the right time to support their physical and mental well-being. Finally, we need pharmacare that is universal. This means we need to work to ensure that the principles of accessibility, affordability, and the appropriate use of prescription drugs are applicable to all Canadians, regardless of where they live. These pharmacare principles align with the work that is already being done on national pharmacare. This work includes our partnership with Prince Edward Island with respect to the improving affordable access to prescription drugs initiative, our implementation of the first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases and the recent announcement of the creation of a Canadian drug agency. Going forward, these principles would be reflected in the upcoming bilateral agreements for universal coverage of contraception and diabetes medications. Let me spend a moment to explain how those principles are already being put into action. On August 11, 2021, the Government of Canada announced it would work with the Government of P.E.I. to improve affordable access to prescription drugs and inform the advancement of national universal pharmacare by providing $35 million over four years to add new drugs to its list of covered drugs and lower out-of-pocket expenses for drugs covered under existing public plans for island residents. As of December 2023, P.E.I. has expanded access to over 100 new medications to treat a variety of conditions, including heart disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis and cancer. In addition, effective June 1, 2023, P.E.I. reduced copays to $5 for almost 60% of medications regularly used by island residents. I am pleased to share that, through this initiative, within the first three months, P.E.I. residents have saved over $2 million in out-of-pocket costs on more than 200,000 prescriptions. As of July 1, 2023, P.E.I. also made adjustments to the catastrophic drug program, lowering the cap on the amount of money a household needs to spend out of pocket on eligible medications. As a result, no eligible P.E.I. household will have to spend more than 6.5% of their household income on eligible medications. Once that 6.5% cap has been reached, eligible medication costs for the remainder of the year will be paid by the program. As members can see, this collaboration is already creating more affordable access to needed medications for island residents. On a national level, we have launched the first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases in March 2023, with an investment of up to $1.5 billion over three years. Most of this investment will be going to provinces and territories through bilateral agreements to improve access to new and emerging drugs for Canadians with rare diseases, as well as support enhanced access to existing drugs, early diagnosis and screening for rare diseases. Similarly, we are providing $33 million over three years to support first nations and Inuit patients with rare diseases, and $68 million is being invested in various initiatives to support collaborative governance, data infrastructure and research for drugs for rare diseases. Through this, the government will help increase access to and affordability of effective drugs for rare diseases to improve the health of patients across Canada. These principles will be further demonstrated and reflected in the next step of national pharmacare outlined in this bill, which describes our intent to work with provinces and territories to provide universal, single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications. In addition, and separately from the bill, we will also create a fund for diabetes devices and supplies. This fund will be rolled out to support access to diabetes devices such as continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, syringes and test strips. This new coverage, to be delivered by provinces and territories that enter into a bilateral agreement, provides an excellent opportunity to see the principles of affordability, accessibility, appropriateness and universality at work. Canadians, no matter where they live or how much they earn, will be able to receive the contraception and diabetes medications they need. In turn, Canadians will be healthier, empowered to make important life decisions and will not have to skip doses due to the cost of these two types of essential medications. In closing, we will continue to work on national pharmacare initiatives that include the principles of accessibility, affordability, appropriateness and universality laid out in this bill, because Canadians need national pharmacare that embodies these principles. We look forward to working with all parliamentarians to pass the pharmacare act so that these principles will continue to guide our ongoing efforts to advance the implementation of national pharmacare.

1136 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/6/24 9:33:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I have been saying the same thing from day one: We are in favour of pharmacare for all Canadians. We think it is a good idea and it is high time for Canada to consider it. However, we have said and keep saying that this is a provincial jurisdiction. If the other provinces want to have a federal program, then they can fill their boots. We know that the Constitution says that this is a jurisdiction of Quebec. Quebec already has its system. Why not leave us with our system? Let the government give us our share. We will keep making group purchases and everything will be fantastic in the best of all possible worlds. Where is the problem?

124 words

Ms. Lisa Hepfner

May/6/24 9:34:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with the fact that everything we do as a federal government has to be done in collaboration with the provinces and territories. We must communicate with Quebec, we must learn from Quebec and will continue to collaborate. It is not something we are going to do alone. We cannot. The provinces cannot do it alone either. We need to work together. I thank the Bloc for everything they contribute to the House.

76 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

May/6/24 9:35:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I would like to recognize two very wonderful young men from my riding, both of whom received the Chief Scout's Award, one being Shawn Hodgkiss, who managed to collect over 1,000 pounds of food for the food bank, and another named Jared Roberts, who volunteered with The Loop and Our Street Church. I congratulate them. They are now in Hansard to reflect their incredible achievement. At the end of the day, the Liberals have spoken so much about doing so many things, yet they have executed everything so poorly. We have had deficit after deficit. We could not even get a passport. The dental program has been a disaster as so few dentists have signed up in the Maritimes, for instance. How can we have any confidence that the government will get this right?

159 words

Ms. Lisa Hepfner

May/6/24 9:35:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite for getting his constituents' names into Hansard today. That was well done. I note that one of the constituents he mentioned is involved in a food program. I would remind the member that one of the things the government has accomplished and that, hopefully, everyone will support is a national school food program, because we absolutely agree that we need to make sure children are well fed in school so they can learn and have good lives.

84 words