44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 22, 2024 02:00PM
- May/22/24 6:27:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the Conservative doctor across the way. After listening to what the Conservatives say, I want to ask them about expressing concern about Canadians and their well-being. When I think about what is being talked about today, why would they oppose a government having the authority to protect the health of Canadians?
It was misleading information when the member said that we would see businesses close down and the industry would be devastated if this legislation does not pass. What garbage. That is what it is. We just heard a lot of garbage and misinformation. Industry representatives see the value of what is happening and what is being provided.
An interesting statistic came to my mind when reading about this. In 2021, Health Canada found that more than 1,600 authorized natural health products companies made illegitimate cancer-related claims in their advertising. After listening to members opposite, one would think that there are no issues at all. If anyone wants to put together some sort of recipe, compress it into a pill format and sell it, Canadians do not have to worry because all those entrepreneurs are not interested solely in money, but in the health and well-being of average Canadians.
I say it does not work that way. The government does have a role to play. I do not quite understand why opposition parties would look at this legislation and say that they are not concerned about the government not being able to get something recalled. I think there are legitimate concerns. It is a wonderful industry, and I do not question that. There are many natural health products out there, and we should look at ways to incorporate them into our health care system. Many of my constituents use the products, as I know many Canadians do in all regions of the country.
We are not saying that there is no role or no place for the products in society. In fact, I would suggest there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, but, equally, there is nothing wrong with ensuring there is a mechanism in place that protects the health and well-being of Canadians, whether it is through a product that might proclaim that it does x, when in fact there is no science to substantiate it or when it is completely misleading. We know that does take place. Even in terms of medications, government has the ability to enforce some form of recall. Why would we not allow for something of that nature with regard to natural health products? I would think it just stands to reason.
The biggest concern I have is the misinformation that is being provided across the way, giving the impression that entrepreneurs and business people in communities throughout the country would shut down the industry if this legislation does not pass. I believe we would find that a vast majority of people see the merit in making sure that there is a safe supply and that there are opportunities for this industry to do well. Having some form of regulation is not a bad thing. It has nothing to do with the government trying to raise additional money.
537 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 6:32:20 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe for his right of reply.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues for their support and for speaking to Bill C-368, but I want to remind people how we arrived here.
There seem to be some forgetful folks. Even though I am thanking the NDP for its position, I would like to remind people how we arrived at this place. We are at this point with natural health products because of a budget implementation act, Bill C-47, which was passed for budget 2023. The authority for that came from a promise made by the leader of the NDP in March 2022 to form a coalition, a supply and confidence agreement, with the Liberal government, which meant carte blanche. It was going to support every budget and every budget implementation act that it had not even seen, discussed nor been party to. It gave that power to the Liberal government, and that is why we are here today.
While I appreciate the NDP's revisionist history on this, it is the reason this change happened in the first place. I am glad it is supporting this bill, which would take the legislative framework back where it was with the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper and where we had the best natural health product regulations, framework and industry in the world. There is no need to tamper any further with the natural health product industry.
I want to talk about freedom of choice in health care, as this is a huge issue. Over 80% of Canadians, and I suspect it is even more, are using natural health products. This is about that freedom of choice and losing that choice. I believe the Canadian Health Food Association, the Natural Health Product Protection Association, the Direct Sellers Association of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business when they say that the changes being proposed by the Liberal government, through Health Canada's changes to the definition of therapeutic products to include natural health products, is going to kill and stifle business. I believe them when they say that because we have a nine-year track record of the government doing nothing but harm to the economy of this country. The government is going to continue to do it to this beautiful, wonderful industry that gives Canadians the choice they need to look after their own personal health.
Finally, I want to thank all the Canadians who have reached out to members of Parliament in a very active campaign to let MPs know how important this is to them. I want to thank the mothers out there who look after their families. I know my wife is the same way. She had a full-time job on top of her full-time job of raising the family while I was here in Ottawa. She wanted to help our kids, to help our family and to keep us healthy. She wanted to make sure we had the best possible health outcomes that we could have. I want to thank all the women who make up the largest part of the workforce and the entrepreneurship in this beautiful industry. The fact that there was not a gender-based analysis on this is striking.
I want to thank the seniors and those with chronic conditions who are scared about losing their access to these health products. When these organizations I mentioned before said that they are going to lose these products, I believe them. These seniors believe them, and these people with chronic conditions believe them. This is how they manage. This is how they cope with their ailments, and we should be enabling and empowering that, not scaring away investments, businesses and opportunities.
I want to thank the wonderful people in the industry. I want to thank the beautiful people I have met from coast to coast who are part of this industry. I have never met a group of people who are more conscientious, more thoughtful, and more creative and innovative. I want them to know that I am very thankful for the work they do.
For those who are going to be voting in favour of this, we are going to be voting on this next Wednesday night in a recorded division. I want to thank my colleagues for sending this to committee so that we can hear from the experts and from Canadians about this because this was snuck through in Bill C-47. The Liberal government is doing it again, right now, with Bill C-69 in this place. It is making even more changes to Health Canada and giving it more powers. Why are we not talking about this in a separate piece of legislation so that we can actually have a proper debate about it? Now we are, with Bill C-368.
It is time to pass Bill C-368. It is time to get back to basics. It is time to get back to making sure that Canadians have access to the health products they deserve. I want to thank my colleagues who are brave enough and who have the courage to do what their constituents want them to do, and vote for Bill C-368.
867 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 6:37:01 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 6:37:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 6:37:36 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 29, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 6:38:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will return to the debate on the gag order for the Standing Committee on Health. I want to remind the Minister of Justice that he makes the same claim that the Minister of Health makes, which is that we need to quickly rush this through the process. This has been a promise that has been lingering for years from their side. There have only been three days of debate, April 16, May 6 and May 7, according to what I see in the House of Commons record. The proposed bill was tabled on February 29.
What the Liberals want, basically, is for the House of Commons and members of Parliament to ratify this, and we have already had a vote on it to send it to committee, without knowing the full contents of those secret negotiations that they had between the NDP and the Liberal minister. His claims were that there was enough talk, because those two parties had talked to each other; therefore, that should be sufficient for the rest of us, and that a potential five hours at committee, not necessarily five hours of witness testimony at the committee, is enough because that is what the programming motion says would happen.
Why does the minister want to gag order the committee so that it can only have five hours of witness testimony to hear about the contents and the impacts that the proposed legislation would have?
241 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 6:39:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would just politely remind the member opposite to take a look at the text of the actual proposed programming motion. It talks about the committee meeting for five hours a day on two further sitting days, so that would be ten hours of hearings. There would be a third sitting day for actual clause-by-clause analysis. There has also already been ten hours of debate on this important bill. I think it is important for Canadians to understand why we believe this is important because Canadians should not have to choose between paying for their bills and paying for their health care.
We know that cost has consistently been identified as the single most important barrier to accessing medications and that cost is unevenly borne by women and gender-diverse Canadians; that is on the contraception piece. With respect to diabetes, one in four Canadians with diabetes has reported not following their treatment plan according to the cost and their inability to pay those costs.
That is significant because, as I said earlier in this debate, people with diabetes that goes untreated end up having more significant health care consequences, which include things like stroke and amputation. The knock-on health care costs to our system are very significant, let alone the hardships those people endure. Through this legislation, which we are putting an emphasis on passing quickly, we can improve the health care outcomes and the economic outcomes for those Canadians.
246 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 6:40:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the reality is that the Conservatives were wrong in blocking dental care. We have seen the success already. The NDP put in place dental care, forced the government to initiate the program, and over two million seniors have already signed up. Over 100,000 seniors have already had access to dental care, including in so many Conservative ridings, so we have seen that success already.
With pharmacare, the NDP, the member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus, pushed to put that into place. That would help, on average, 18,000 people in each riding in the country. That is 18,000 in every single Conservative riding. Another 25,000 would access contraception. That means between those two elements of the NDP's pharmacare plan, over 40,000 Canadians would benefit in every single riding in the country. In every single Conservative riding in the country, 40,000 people would benefit.
Why are Conservatives blocking something that would help 40,000 of their constituents, many of whom are at risk of their lives if they do not take the medication?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 6:41:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the short answer is that I am not sure why the Conservatives would block access to health care and medication being covered for their own constituents, who include nine million women and 3.7 million people who are suffering from diabetes.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 6:42:14 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 6:42:47 p.m.
- Watch
I would ask for a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 6:42:51 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 7:25:40 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just to confirm, now that the motion has passed regarding Motion No. 39, I lose my unlimited time and I now have a 20-minute slot. Therefore, I will have to share my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester, even though I would have enjoyed continuing to speak to an issue that I hold very dear to my heart, which is the approval of drugs for rare diseases in Canada and how patients can get access to them. Those two words actually only appear once in the legislation.
People with a rare disease are some of the most needy patients in Canada. As I said during the debate on Bill C-213 back in 2021, the hardest medication to get in Canada is the one that is not approved and not available because the manufacturer will say that Canada is too complicated, too difficult and it is not worth its time to try to get it onto our market. That is because of all the regulatory hurdles and steps that exist that make it very difficult for patients with rare diseases to get access to the drugs they need.
We saw this with cystic fibrosis drugs for patients who were trying to get access to Trikafta. It took many years from the time when it was available to patients in America to when it was available in Canada, and it was regulatory hurdles that made it much more difficult to do so.
Now that the government has passed this gag order on the gag order, it will direct the Standing Committee on Health on how it will consider the matter.
274 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I want to draw the attention of the House to the debate on May 6, page 23051, where the Minister of Health responded to a question from the member for Berthier—Maskinongé about the timelines and why the Liberals were limiting debate. At the time, the minister said, “ there will be time for the committee to conduct a study.” I would put to members and constituents back home that a potential 10 hours of witness testimony at a committee is insufficient time to consider this pamphlet of a bill that the NDP-Liberal coalition is pretending is pharmacare. I have read the legislation in full, so I will comment on its contents as well.
The minister went on to say, “Yes, it is important to debate. However, there is plenty of time for debate in committee and during the rest of the House process. It is time to get on with it and move forward.” With this programming motion, the Liberals have essentially ordered the MPs on the committee to only consider it for a few more hours and then send it back here. In fact, after this bill has passed, there is now only one more day left for amendments to be considered. How can amendments be proposed without hearing from officials and witnesses who might bring forward amendments that would be of value to be considered by parliamentarians on that committee? It seems this is completely backward.
I want to comment on the issue of Conservatives delaying the bill, because this is a favourite talking point now of the Liberals and their colleagues in the NDP. I want the member for New Westminster—Burnaby to pay close attention to this. The bill was tabled on February 29. I would suggest that almost three and a half years into this mandate, this bill was not a priority of the government. Second of all, this bill was considered on April 16, May 6 and May 7, three days of consideration by the House of Commons. There were secret negotiations held between the Minister of Health, because he actually said it on the record, and whichever person on the NDP side who was negotiating so they could cobble together this particular piece of legislation.
I would put to members and my constituents back home, who deeply care about patients with rare diseases like I do, that there is nothing in this particular piece of legislation for them. It is not the job of the House of Commons or members of Parliament to simply ratify a secret deal reached between the Minister of Health and the NDP negotiator or negotiators. Our job is to debate, to bring forward ideas and potential amendments from expert witnesses, stakeholder groups and individuals back in our ridings who deeply care about this issue.
I will also mention that although Quebec has been mentioned several times, there is another province that has said openly it will not participate in this pamphlet of a pharmacare plan. It is Alberta, where I am from. Successive ministers of health have said they will not participate in it. One of the talking points I have heard is that we have a patchwork system right now in Canada. Saying “patchwork” is a way to kind of denigrate the hard work of the public servants in the different provinces in Canada who work for these public insurance plans. They are all over.
In fact, in Alberta, Blue Cross is available to anyone who wants it. There are lots of different public insurance plans. There are lots of public servants who work for them, and they work very hard to make sure they cover as many Albertans as possible. My province has said no and Quebec has said no, so we still have a patchwork. Even if this bill passes, even if it were to follow through on all the principles, the highfalutin language that I hear from the Liberals and the NDP on this, there will still be a patchwork in this country. We cannot force a province to participate.
As clause 6 of the pharmacare legislation clearly states, nobody's medication will be paid for. There are separate agreements that would have to be reached with each province. It says very clearly in subclause 6(1) of the pharmacare legislation, “in order to increase any existing public pharmacare coverage”. That would suggest that every single province has to either create or drastically expand a plan or successive series of plans that are single-payer, because that is one of the principles referred to again in that section.
If a province does not do that, it cannot negotiate a deal for future medication to be covered. No medication will get covered for either diabetes or contraceptives when this legislation passes. There will be none because no agreements have been signed yet. Alberta has said no, Quebec has said no, but the patchwork will continue.
I will move on to the legislation as I do want to mention this. Like I said before in a prior debate, there is a Yiddish proverb I used after listening to the minister's speech when he introduced Motion No. 39. He seems to think that pearls flow from his mouth because when I compared his speech at second reading on pharmacare, Bill C-64, and his speech on Motion No. 39, they were almost identical.
The minister actually used the exact same three anecdotes to make the case for why this plan is necessary. In the summary of the legislation, when the contents are reviewed, it gets into a lot of areas of provincial jurisdiction. This should be exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is starting to interfere with how the provinces manage their public health care plans.
I will mention here that nobody with a rare disease will be covered by this piece of legislation. Nobody will be covered, whether someone has phenylketonuria, PKU, whether someone has cystinosis and needs Cystagon, or whether someone has MS, which is, I would say, the most common rare disease in Canada. None of their medication will be covered. If someone's kids have a rare disease, or a family like mine has Alport's syndrome, none of their medication will be covered by this piece of legislation.
The “Funding commitment” in clause 5 reads, “beginning with those for rare diseases. The funding for provinces and territories must be provided primarily through agreements with their respective governments. Then it goes on to talk about “payments” in clause 6 and completely contradicts clause 5 because it says, “for specific prescription drugs and related products intended for contraception or the treatment of diabetes.” In fact, there will be no payment plan for anything else. There cannot be because this legislation will not do any of those things. Nobody with a rare disease will be covered once this legislation passes.
I have been, I hope, consistent in this place about rare disease patients for the past nine years. That is the focus of my opposition to national pharmacare because it will not help them. Like I said, the hardest medications to get in Canada are the ones that are not approved in Canada. All the changes the government has done to the Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technologies in Health, CADTH, as well as all of the changes made to the Canadian Drug Agency, the PMPRB and the PCPA have been repetitive. The same mistakes are being repeated here.
The government says it is going to do bulk buying. Bulk buying is already done. It is done by the provinces through the PCPA. The government has an agreement for generics as well, which are not covered in this particular piece of legislation. There is no direct reference to generics. There is no direct reference to patented medication. It does not talk about those things. It takes years to get those drugs approved in Canada.
I would put to members and my constituents back home, who have emailed me because they are all so worried about this, that this is a pamphlet of legislation. The substance will be in the agreements that may come in the future. There are already two provinces that have backed out and other provinces are considering doing the same. Why is it that, since 2019, when the government announced it was going to fund drugs for rare diseases at $1.5 billion, it has done nothing? Not a single medication prescription has been filled for anyone I know with a rare disease in Canada. That money is just sitting there. The government has only started to put out RFPs to consider creating registries for rare disease patients. Registries, not medication. Most of the money remains unspent. The government has not done anything. That is the same thing that will happen here: a series of broken promises, unkept promises. The Liberals are being helped by the NDP to do this, giving people false hope.
I tell people who enter my office that the last thing I want to do is give false hope. I have two serious rare diseases in my family. Families who have rare diseases like mine cannot wait for the government to get its act together again.
1556 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 7:36:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing just how the Conservative Party does not get it. We are talking about millions of Canadians who will directly benefit from the passage of this legislation. The member wonders why it is that we have to bring in some form of a closure motion. The member himself is the one who started the debate. He has already been debating it now for well over a half hour. It is because the Conservatives do not support pharmacare, unlike the Liberal Party that understands its true value. Millions of Canadians are going to benefit by this program.
Can the member be very clear and explain to his constituents, to Canadians, why the Conservative Party does not see the benefits of supporting people who have diabetes? Think of the seniors on fixed incomes. Why does the Conservative Party not support pharmacare?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 7:37:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if my constituents or members of this House look at my speaking time in this chamber and compare it to that member's speaking time on government bills, they will see that he has delayed more government bills than any Conservative in this House.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 7:37:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague on one thing, and that is about the member for Winnipeg North. I do not agree with him, however, on the reasons why the Bloc Québécois opposes the pharmacare plan. We oppose it because it directly interferes in Quebec's jurisdictions.
I would like to point something out to my colleague, because he spoke at length about rare diseases. In the early 2000s, there were seven major pharmaceutical companies doing research in Canada, six of which were based in Quebec. There was a program at the time that gave them access to tax credits. If I remember correctly, it was called technology partnerships Canada.
The government that shut it down was Stephen Harper's in 2007. In hindsight, does my colleague think that was a bad idea?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 7:38:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that the reason why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to Government Business No. 39 and this bill is, of course, that this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. We should put our trust in all the provinces. They know how best to manage their health care system and health insurance for the patients and families in their own territory.
We are talking about programs that existed 24 years ago. Many changes have been made since then through bills and regulations passed by the government. I am basing myself on what is happening today and not what happened 25 years ago.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
