SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 315 - May/22/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/22/24 6:42:51 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/22/24 7:25:40 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

May/22/24 7:26:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-213

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

Mr. Tom Kmiec

May/22/24 7:27:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

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

C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

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

Mr. Tom Kmiec

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

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

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

Mr. Tom Kmiec

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

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/22/24 7:39:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like my colleague and I appreciate his fluent bilingualism. I have to say that Conservatives are very consistent. Sixty years ago, they opposed universal health care, and they fought in the House to block universal health care. Today, it is our most cherished national institution. Last year, they fought dental care, and now we see two million Canadian seniors signed up, and 100,000 who have already received services in the first few weeks. They were wrong on dental care as well. The trial balloons the member throws up on pharmacare indicate that, again, the Conservatives are wrong on health care. The reality is, in the member's riding, more than 18,000 people will benefit from the diabetes medication and more than 25,000 will benefit from the contraception. The member pointed out that there are two provinces that oppose it, although all of the central trade unions in Quebec support this. The reality is that the most unpopular government in the country is in Alberta right now where we have a premier who has been very erratic. However, there are advantages to Albertans in signing the deal and in passing this legislation. Why are Conservatives holding up and blocking this legislation?

206 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

May/22/24 7:40:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the member. I think the most unpopular government today is the NDP government in British Columbia. Premier Eby is now going to be facing the electorate after going along with the Liberal plan to basically approve all hard drugs and just spread them across the streets of Vancouver. I have door-knocked in the member's riding, I have met church groups in his riding. I have gone door-to-door in several Burnaby-area ridings and this does not come up. What comes up is the carbon tax and how much people are paying, how punishing it is and how grocery prices are out of control. That is what they are actually talking about, not pamphlet pharmacare that has been the dream of the elites in the NDP. By the way, it is a plan that will also go after unions that negotiate hard at the table for the benefits that they get. Sometimes they give up pay increases for better insurance benefits, which are going to be taken away by stuff like this.

182 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

May/22/24 7:41:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of democracy and common-sense Conservatives here in the House of Commons. What we see over and over again, presented by the costly coalition, are failures: failed plans, failed opportunities and a failure for Canadians. It is very sad to see a government in the last throes of its mandate, which has been here for nine incredibly long and difficult years on the backs of Canadians. We have a failed dental care plan and a failed opioid experiment. Sadly, we have a failing health care system, which pains me to no end. Now we have a failed pharmacare pamphlet. Why do we call it a pamphlet? It is because it promises to potentially do something, when, in essence, it is doing absolutely nothing. There is nothing here. It is another photo op. When I am back home on our break week to go and visit those who have supported us and those who perhaps have not, people ask me about this great pharmacare program, wondering when they can get their free medications. I have to explain to them that what we see is a photo opportunity to announce a program that has to go a consultative route with an expert panel. Sadly, another government agency then has to be created. Already, my colleague from Calgary Shepard rightly spoke about the numerous agencies that are created and the opportunities that have been lost. Then there also have to be consultations with the provinces to see if this is something that fits into their framework, since they deliver health care and are responsible for that delivery. We continue to see this opportunity being lost because of the crazy spending and wacko politics we see across the aisle over and over. I spoke briefly about the failed dental care program. My colleague from the other part of the costly coalition wants to tout how many people in my riding might benefit from a dental care program. However, when we go out and speak to dentists, as I have done, we know this plan is so bad that dentists will not even sign on for it. I have spoken to every single dental association across the country. The Liberals are doing a bit of gaslighting, which we see over and over, when they talk about how many dental professionals have signed up. There are dental hygienists, who are independent from dentists. However, we know that Canadians want access to a dentist, much like they want a primary care provider in the health care system. The government also promised 7,500 doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners. On this side of the House, we know that is not in the purview of the federal government, but be that as it may, that is something it promised over there. We all know it has not delivered. In addition, the number of people who do not have access to primary care continues to climb. I know my colleague from Winnipeg Centre will get up and say, “Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth to say that this is not the purview of the federal government, but that of the provincial government, because I have heard him say it before.” The difficulty is that it is his government, his side of the House, in concert with the costly coalition, that promised to deliver 7,500 doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners. Therefore, when we see the system failing on the backs of the promises the Liberals continue to make, we know that they are continuing to fail Canadians. I talked briefly in my opening remarks about the opioid experiment, which is another failure. The NDP-Liberal coalition, for some reason, made that decision; we hope it will finally walk back on that and make it law to not continue these types of experiments. Interestingly enough, on behalf of Canadians, we know that there is reasonable evidence that the opioid epidemic that exists in North America was probably started because of access to OxyContin. Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family were successfully sued in the United States for their complicit nature in this epidemic that has existed. Because of that, we now have an opioid epidemic that is often related to fentanyl. The interesting question is this: How could a government believe that decriminalizing that drug could possibly fix this crisis that was started originally because of too much OxyContin being easily accessible? Doing so has meant adding more of it, and other drugs like it, such as hydromorphone, on the street; in this case, there is often so-called safe supply for zero cost. It is another failure the government has supported. It pains me to no end to have to talk about the failed and failing health care system. Certainly, the former president of the Canadian Medical Association, Katharine Smart, said it very concisely. She said we have a system that is now, sadly, on the brink of collapse. Why is it on the brink of collapse? As Canadians know, the entire health care system in our country is predicated on having access to primary care. This then gives us access to other services we need, other procedures, other laboratory tests and specialist care. When we do not have that access, several things happen. Someone does not get any access at all, their health suffers because of that and they give up; otherwise, they end up trying to access the system through episodic care, which is often related to visiting emergency rooms, and we know they are incredibly clogged up. At this point in the history of our great country, approximately seven million Canadians do not have access to primary care, because of the failure of the health care system on the promises, as I have already mentioned, of this costly coalition. What are the effects? We know these effects happen on an everyday basis in the ridings of every member of Parliament across the nation. We know that, incredibly sadly, people are dying while they are waiting for care in emergency rooms. We know that emergency rooms are clogged up for hours on end. There are many stories about people waiting 12 and 24 hours. The most atrocious story I have heard lately is the sad story of a gentleman who was a quadriplegic. He waited for innumerable hours in an emergency room, got bedsores and then chose MAID over trying to improve his health. When we hear these drastic and unfathomable stories of the health care system, we begin to wonder why an NDP-Liberal coalition wants to spend more and more money on health care. It wants to spend $1.5 billion, on this particular occasion, on contraceptives and diabetes medication. We see that the Liberals have failed at dental care and their opioid experiment; now they are failing at a health care plan and at pharmacare. We also understand that this is not a plan. This is like someone saying they built a mansion when they do not even own the land on which to build said mansion. It is a pamphlet, it is a photo opportunity, and it is going to be another failure, sadly, on behalf of Canadians who are already demanding their free medications. We know the plan the costly coalition created is many years down the road. We also know, because of the Liberals' desire to ram this piece of legislation through, that there are already studies planned in the health committee. We are finishing the study on opioids, which we know is a disaster. We are looking at breast cancer screening, which would help save the lives of many young women here in Canada. It is because of the ram-down-one's-throat nature of the motion on the bill that those studies will be missed. Do I believe that we need more time to study this in health committee? Yes, I do. I do not believe that having 10 hours of witnesses, when we have 10 to 20 witnesses who want to appear and talk about this, is going to be a significant problem. Therefore, I move: That the motion be amended by adding to paragraph (a) the following: “(vii) the Minister of Health and his officials be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than three hours.”

1402 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/22/24 7:51:52 p.m.
Watch

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

17 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/22/24 7:52:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised by the member across the way, because he is someone who has consistently demonstrated the contrast between the government and the official opposition, the Conservatives. The Conservative Party does not believe in Canada's health care system, and their record will clearly demonstrate that. When I take a look at a holistic approach to health care, we have made a $200-billion commitment over the next 10 years that future generations can see. We have negotiated health care accords with all provinces and territories. We continue to look at a dental program that is a success. The bill is an expansion of the pharmacare program. This is a government that truly cares and values our health care system, and we are working with governments to make a difference. The Conservatives, on the other hand, just criticize, because they do not support a national health care system. My question for the member is this: Why?

160 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

May/22/24 7:53:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had the great opportunity and privilege to be educated in this country as a family physician and to work as a family doctor for 26 years. I take great umbrage at what the member across wishes to say about my feelings around the health care system. I would go so far as to say that one of the main reasons I had my resident take over my practice was so that I could come here and have the opportunity to work inside this system to make the health care system better. What I do not support is a health care system where we see somewhere between 17,000 and 30,000 Canadians dying every year because of a lack of access to it. I place that squarely at the feet of the costly NDP-Liberal coalition.

139 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/22/24 7:54:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, whom I work with at the health committee. However, he has really made the case for passing the legislation. First, he did talk about the Harper cuts and the slashing of health care funding that has led to the crisis we still see today. The Liberals have not been quick enough to actually restore the funding that the Harper government cut, but the Harper government was the major instigator of the problems that we have in the health care system today. It is not just that, though. As members know, emergency rooms across this country are populated by people who do not have access to dental care. The NDP offered dental care; the Conservatives voted against it. The Canadian Nurses Association tells us that there are hundreds of people who have to go to emergency rooms because they cannot afford to pay for their medication. Again, the NDP offers pharmacare, so I guess the question is this: If he is aware of the problems in the health care system, does he apologize for the Harper cuts, and is he willing now to understand that dental care and pharmacare are actually key elements in trying to bring down the number of people in emergency rooms and give better health care to all Canadians?

223 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

May/22/24 7:55:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, sadly, the member is obviously misinformed and trying to present disinformation to Canadians. We know of the Harper government, and I am quite glad that the spirit of Mr. Harper lives rent-free in the head of the NDP's costly coalition all the time. They love to bring him up, but on this side of the House, we also know that the funding for health care went up every year under the Harper government. The other thing that we know, again, is of the misinformation and disinformation provided by the member, sadly. I sometimes enjoy working with him as well, but the majority of people in emergency rooms are not showing up because of dental problems. That is just an absolute non-truth, and if they did show up because they could not afford their medications, then presenting to the emergency room is of no benefit. Someone does not get free medications in the emergency room, so it is just a bunch of foolishness to try to keep the government in power.

175 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

May/22/24 7:56:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier I was listening intently to my colleague, who is a doctor, talking about the shortcomings of the health care system. However, I have never heard his leader clearly state whether he supports the provinces' request to increase health care funding from 22% to 35%. This government has not agreed to that request. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. Does he agree with that? Would his leader be willing to increase the federal share of health care funding from 22% to 35%?

89 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

May/22/24 7:56:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the media nine or 10 months ago. The answer to that question is that we want to uphold the existing transfers. I think that is very important. We also need to think of other ways to improve the health care system here in Canada, while respecting the provinces.

57 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

May/22/24 7:57:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate, but I think it is unfortunate that I will not have much time to do so. With the help of the NDP, the government has limited the time for debate. That means that, today, I will not be able to share absolutely everything that I would have liked to share and debate with my colleagues because time allocation has been imposed on an important bill that has consequences for the provinces. This bill will have consequences and it will infringe on provincial jurisdictions. It may also cause disruptions in the existing system. I think it would have been only reasonable for us to take the necessary time to debate this bill and to shed light on some of its inherent problems. We think that this shows that the government and the NDP are in a hurry to tick a box on their platform so that they can have people believe that they implemented a universal pharmacare program, which is not the case. Today, we are debating a bill that sets out a series of principles. If those principles are adopted and if the provinces are willing, then one day there may be a pan-Canadian pharmacare program. However, there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. First, Quebec has unequivocally stated that it will not support this bill or work with the federal government to set up a Canadian pharmacare program. In fact, Quebec has had a hybrid pharmacare program since 1996, meaning that no one in Quebec lacks drug coverage. Everyone is covered, either through their job—with a collective agreement or a contract that allows them to access a private company—or through access to the public pharmacare plan, which is administered by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. The bill we have before us blatantly encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction. The government is suddenly swooping in to play the leader in a program that already exists in Quebec. The NDP will not have a chance to ask me the question, so I will provide the answer I would have given if my colleagues had asked it. We know that in Quebec, the unions, who for the most part represent public sector workers, pay big medicare and pharmacare premiums on their paycheque. We in the Bloc Québécois agree that there is an imbalance. The government should talk to Quebec and the unions to find an answer to this situation, because there is indeed a problem. However, what my NDP colleagues fail to mention is that at the National Assembly, which is the democratic assembly of Quebec, all the parties, namely Québec Solidaire, the Parti Québécois, the Liberal Party and the CAQ government, unanimously adopted a motion saying that this is out of the question, that this does not interest them, but that it might interest them if the federal government were willing to give them the money to improve their own programs, with no strings attached. We are not being bad sports. We are simply asking the government not to disrupt the way we manage pharmacare in Quebec. That said, we are prepared to talk, take the money, improve our program and, perhaps, find a solution to the issue of public sector workers paying unreasonable premiums. I say this because, before becoming an MP, I was a public sector worker. When I looked at my paycheque, I saw that I was paying huge premiums. This is due to the fact that pharmaceutical groups now finance their medications in a certain way. A small number of us finance the costs of increasingly niche medications for very specific patients. That means a very small number of us are paying the costs of research. Public system workers are the ones paying a large share of it. Since we agree on that, what stopped the government and the NDP from agreeing to Quebec's request? Quebec is not against pharmacare. It is not unwilling to explore ways of improving it. However, the government should not try to tell Quebec how to do it, what recipe to follow, and so on. This bill contains all sorts of steps that need to be taken before people can get a full refund of their drug costs, including diabetes medications or contraceptives for women. That is going to take a long time. The government wants us to believe that if this bill is passed, people will have access to a free, universal Canadian pharmacare program by the next day. We do not think that is possible, because it will take quite a while before Quebec reaches an agreement with the federal government. I heard my colleague say that Alberta, like Quebec, has also voiced opposition. I know that time is running out and that the time I am taking to talk is delaying the next vote, but I still have a lot more to say about how we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, do not understand why we are being accused of blocking a bill like this one, when Quebec has jurisdiction and is responsible for managing everything related to health, including pharmacare. As we know, the provinces have created an alliance so that they can buy prescription drugs in bulk. Quebec's health minister, along with a team of experts, determines the list of drugs that are covered by the public plan. We also have a system that enables doctors to ask the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec for exemptions, so that a person who really needs a drug that is not on the formulary can get reimbursed for it. Imagine if Canada came up with a formulary that was completely different from Quebec's formulary. Imagine the utter confusion that would cause. That is already happening with the dental insurance. We do not need another pan-Canadian program to tell us how to manage our health and social services. What is more, the federal government is not in the best position to tell us what to do, since it already has enough trouble managing its own affairs in areas under its own jurisdiction. We are calling on the federal government to leave it to Quebec and the provinces to provide the service. The best way to help Quebec and the provinces is to give them the money with a right to opt out with no strings attached. That would prove that what matters is not making political gains, but ensuring that people have access to a pharmacare program. What we are seeing is simply a PR exercise where two political parties are hurting in the polls and they want to be able to tick a box on their record and build their electoral campaign on it. Speaking for myself, I am going to be very uncomfortable when people ask me when they will be able to get their drugs for free in Quebec. I have no date to give them. I really have no hope of giving them one either because, based on what we are seeing right now, this is just a PR campaign that is misinforming the public. I find that shameful.

1220 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/22/24 8:07:13 p.m.
Watch

It being 8:07 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 39 now before the House. The question is on the amendment. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of amendment to House] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If a member present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

111 words