SoVote

May/6/24 3:36:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives should have stood up and should have the guts to actually defend the unbelievably negative things that they have tried to do around pharmacare. My question to my colleague is very simple. When 17,000 of their constituents need access to diabetes medication and 25,000 need access to their reproductive health prescriptions, which are part of this bill, why are Conservatives blocking the ability of Canadians to access these medications?

75 words

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

Hon. Mark Holland

May/6/24 3:44:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a concrete proposal to move pharmacare forward in this country. The drugs are two classes of drugs. They represent more than 80 different medical drugs that deal specifically with diabetes and contraceptives. It is part of a broader suite of actions that we are taking, such as, for example, drugs for rare diseases. I am currently having conversations with every province and territory about how we can take action on drugs for rare diseases so that folks with rare diseases can get access to the medications they need. It is part of what we have done on bulk purchasing to realize $300 million in savings for Canadians across the country. It also builds on the work that we are doing with a pilot in P.E.I., where we have been able to get copays down to five dollars there, saving seniors hundreds and hundreds of dollars in P.E.I. Action is taken one step at a time by demonstrating in evidence exactly what is going to be saved and exactly how this should function. As an example, in British Columbia, when it comes to contraceptives, it already shows that the province is saving more than it costs to run the program. I suspect we will also see that in diabetes. Canadians, rightfully, want to see this in evidence. They want to see these things live out there, demonstrate how they work in each example and then build on that successively. Our health care system was based on an iterative process by making sure that the steps we take are prudent, smart and fiscally responsible, and that is the way that we need to proceed with pharmacare as well.

284 words

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

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

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

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

May/6/24 7:35:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I studied pharmacare at the health committee, we heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and multiple stakeholders that 95% of Canadians already have prescription medication coverage, and most of them are covered for 15,000 drugs, not two, like this lame bill that we have before us. Not only that, but the Liberals want to have the critical medications for Canadians delivered to them by the same fantastic bunch that cannot get a passport out the door in seven months and that have a 30% error rate in CRA. Is that who we want to manage the critical medications of Canadians? What could possibly go wrong? Would the member just admit that this bill is a pacifier for the NDP, to keep them from pulling their support and calling an election?

134 words

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

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

May/6/24 7:56:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, 27 million Canadians who rely on workplace plans would be placed at risk by the legislation. It would create the Canadian drug agency, which would cost about $90 million to create, and perhaps another $35 million a year to continue. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says it would cost tens of billions of dollars. However, when asked, the Liberals do not have an answer. They are not sure. It is kind of like the carbon tax, which was supposed to be revenue-neutral but made a billion dollars, but we are not really sure where that money went. Nobody seems to know. The major cause of people's inability to afford their medications is the cost of living. The number one reason people say they cannot afford their medications is inflation and the cost of living. This one is my favourite. Who remembers the $4.5-billion promise from the Liberals of a mental health transfer? I cannot find it. I have not seen it. However, what I do know is that we have ranked 35th out of 38 in the world for teen suicide. That is where we are at in Canada, but the Liberals are going to come save us. They do not deliver. They are the guy who promises—

214 words

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

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