44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2024 10:00AM
- May/30/24 6:59:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member and I share an experience. We have both served in the provincial legislatures in our respective provinces, Manitoba for him and Ontario for me. We know that one of the biggest responsibilities provinces have is the delivery of health care. That is why it is imperative that the federal government work with provinces and territories in delivering these programs. That is what this pharmacare framework legislation is all about. I am very much looking forward to entering into those bilateral agreements with provinces and territories once this bill is passed into law.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the members who may have the courage to sit late with us this evening.
Today we are debating Bill C‑64 to supposedly institute a national pharmacare program. I say supposedly because that is not what the bill does. Let us speak the truth. It is a bill mainly designed to playing politics, to the benefit of who knows who because by all accounts, the NDP is dropping in the polls.
What we are seeing today is a partial implementation of this system. The Liberal government, together with the NDP, is focusing on diabetes medication and contraceptives. What we are seeing today is a bit what the Conservatives have also been trying to do for a while now in this Parliament, to introduce American-style politics here in Canada's Parliament. We know that in the United States, in some states, the right-wing parties, the right-wing Republicans are attacking a woman's right to bodily autonomy. The Liberals are very afraid of the Conservatives, often with reason, because we know that there are a lot of people in the Conservative caucus who think that women do not have the right to control their own bodies. Essentially, the pharmacare plan is being used to Americanize Canadian politics.
Now, what this bill does is say that a national pharmacare program is needed. I want to point out that we are talking here about a federal national program, because we know that Quebec is a nation. The government is imposing a format. It is called first dollar coverage, which means that an individual must be insured and must have access to medication without having to spend a single penny. I understand that it would be ideal if many insurance plans, depending on the nature of the risk, were to say that, when a person is sick, they are not responsible for their situation. They did not do anything in particular to get sick, they are just unlucky and they should be insured and not have to spend a single penny. Society will be responsible for providing full insurance coverage.
However, Quebec already has an insurance program, a mixed insurance system. It is true that people have to pay a little. For example, for the public plan, when a person does not have a workplace plan or a private plan, they pay from $0 to $700 and change per year per person, depending on income. The contribution is geared to income. Most people have a plan through their employer that is negotiated as part of their collective agreement, so it is true that, in some cases, people pay a deductible for medication. They pay a certain amount, which is often very low, but everyone in Quebec is insured and the system already exists.
The money that is going to be used to meddle in Quebec's affairs in an area where the federal government is notoriously incompetent, namely health care, should be paid out to Quebec so that we can improve the system that already exists and help it evolve. There is a list of 8,000 drugs that are covered in Quebec. That seems to have piqued people's interest. The federal government knows it is going to be very expensive, so it is buying time. The Liberals know very well that this completely universal plan, where everything is covered, will never come to fruition before the Conservatives come to power. This plan deals with two health conditions. Do people realize how huge a gap there is between reality and rhetoric and how we could have taken this money and sent it to Quebec so that these funds could be managed based on Quebec's priorities?
Some of the debates we had were disgusting in many ways. We, in the Bloc, were told that by opposing Bill C‑64, we were opposing the well-being of the people in our own ridings, and that the only possible way to show concern for people's health, supposedly, was to support a bill that will not properly establish a universal pharmacare system for Quebeckers. That is going to be addressed through questions, if the Liberals ask any. They will tell us that we are against this or that, that we are against people's health, but that is absolutely untrue. We are in favour of insurance, but Quebec is ahead of the game, and we cannot totally upend the Quebec system just because at some point, 25 years down the road, the federal government and the NDP decided to wake up one Tuesday morning. We cannot do that.
One of the reasons the NDP included this kind of program in its coalition agreement with the Liberals, and one of the reasons the only NDP member from Quebec, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, is fighting tooth and nail for Bill C‑64, is supposedly because the major unions support it. It is a delicate situation.
It is true that the cost of drugs has increased, as has the cost of health care services in general, as well as all health technologies. As a result, the cost of private group insurance has gone up. In many workplaces, employer and employee contributions have increased over the past few years. This can put pressure on people's ability to pay. This can put pressure on collective bargaining to get higher wages to deal with the cost of living. We recognize that. We know that is important.
The reason the unions might be united in supporting this federal legislation is not because Ottawa is capable, it is not because Ottawa is good, it is not because Ottawa is competent, it is because the money is in Ottawa; it is because there is a fundamental fiscal imbalance; it is because there are more revenues in Ottawa than the weight of responsibility on the federal government; it is because the provinces need money. The federal government is so determined not to transfer money unconditionally to the provinces that many people have at some point lost confidence in one day having a federal government that will act responsibly and transfer money unconditionally. At some point, the unions decided that they will support the minimum. They will support what they think is feasible in a context where the federal government's lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions and its contempt for Quebec have been institutionalized for decades. That is what is happening.
The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is grandstanding and saying that he has the support of the unions. The message that he should be sending to the unions is this. He should tell the unions that, with Ottawa running this program, they will get less value for their money. There will be fewer drugs and less coverage. The system will not be as effective. The government will be creating a redundant system. In the end, the workers are the ones who will pay. This measure is extremely anti-union.
The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie should have acted more responsibly. He should have explained to the unions that we need to stand together and look to Quebec to get the transfers with no strings attached because Quebec is prepared to improve its system. That is what should be done.
I served on the Standing Committee on Health for several months. The ability to spend, the ability to put a knife to the provinces' throats, to make them accept conditions in exchange for money is in the NDP's DNA. I spent enough time in committee to know that.
The Bloc Québécois proposed a completely reasonable amendment. It asked for the right for Quebec to opt out with full compensation because Quebec already has all the necessary infrastructure. Quebec already has a system. Quebec is prepared to improve its system. It needs that money to continue this social development, which, as with day cares, means that, today, Quebec has a social policy—
1343 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:08:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize to our hon. colleague.
I rise on a point of order. In a debate such as this, there seems to be, according to our constitutional requirements, a lack of quorum.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:08:46 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry, but quorum cannot be called during this debate.
The hon. member for Mirabel.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:08:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, the absence of Liberal colleagues in the House should not be mentioned.
We have tabled an amendment—
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to be very clear, there are members inside and outside the chamber, from all political parties, who listen—
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:17 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry. Someone was speaking while you were speaking initially and I did not quite get what the hon. member said.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was just in reference to quorum. It should be noted that members cannot call quorum, as you have pointed out, but there are members, both—
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:30 p.m.
- Watch
Yes. Thank you very much. I think all members know very well what the rules are because of the fact we have been doing this over and again for quite some time. There is no quorum call during these debates.
The hon. member for Mirabel.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that adds a bit of spice to our evening, obviously.
As I was saying, we asked for the right to opt out with full financial compensation. That should have been granted, in the interests of patients, those who are ill and workers. However, it was denied by the Speaker on the pretext that it requires royal recommendation, when the only thing Quebec wants is to have its share of the funds that are already allocated within this bill.
This shows just how institutionalized and deep-seated Ottawa's desire is to crush Quebec, to crush Quebec's desire to act in its own areas of jurisdiction and to exercise authority within its own areas of jurisdiction based on its preferences, particularly when it comes to pharmacare. It is in the genes of Ottawa's politicians, in their DNA. What is happening here today is so unfortunate.
It is unfortunate because the interests of patients and Quebeckers are coming second. We should be greatly saddened to see that people's health is being politicized for electoral purposes. That should never be commended.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am truly surprised that the Bloc Québécois refuses to listen to what Quebeckers are saying.
A large coalition, the largest in Quebec, made up of two million Quebeckers, major unions and community groups, said that Quebeckers applauded the federal government's Bill C‑64.
They said the following:
Never before have we come so close to implementing a real public, universal pharmacare program. The hybrid public-private system in place in Quebec creates a two-tiered system that is unsustainable and needs to be fixed.
While criticizing the system, they also said this:
We are asking the federal government not to give in to the provinces and territories, which are asking for an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation.
That is the message that Quebeckers are sending to the Bloc Québécois. It is a bit like dental care, where the largest percentage of people advocating for dental care are Quebeckers.
Why does the Bloc Québécois refuse to listen to Quebeckers?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:12:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are dissenting voices in every society. There are debates in every society. However, Quebec's voice is heard in the Quebec National Assembly, which is made up of 125 members who are elected by the people.
My NDP colleague's leader had the nerve to send a letter to Quebec's health minister. He literally told the health minister that he wanted a meeting with him, that he wanted to educate him and teach him how pharmacare works.
Do members know how Quebec's democracy responded? First, he was told to take a hike, because it was deeply disrespectful and ridiculous. Then, Quebec's democracy unanimously passed a motion in the National Assembly denouncing this kind of paternalistic attitude, which is, and always will be, unacceptable.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:13:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mirabel for a very well-thought-out speech.
I come from Ontario, and the Conservative Government of Ontario has something called the Ontario drug benefit program. The member is aware of, and quite rightly pointed out, the jurisdiction of the provinces.
The pharmacare program that the government is bringing forward is not really a pharmacare program. It is like an announcement. It does not cover most of the drugs that the provincial plans cover. No Canadian, no Ontarian, wants a worse plan that would cover less. Perhaps the federal government would only cover certain medications.
Could the member explain to the Liberals and the NDP a little more about the jurisdictional issues that they are dealing with, and what people on the ground in his community are really asking for?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:14:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question.
One thing is for certain: If the federal government has money for the provinces to cover more drugs, then perhaps even more drugs could be covered if the money is sent to the provinces and they are given the right to opt out with full compensation so that they can expand programs with existing infrastructure.
However, Ottawa has this bad habit of creating structures, bureaucracy and new layers of all sorts of things that cost a lot of money. Then we end up with dental care plans like the Liberal plan that ultimately involves the private sector, which runs counter to the very principle of the Canada Health Act if it were subject to it. That is what we end up with. These are failures after failures.
What is the point of all this? It is about campaigning for the Liberals and the NDP.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:15:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am also from Quebec and I fully respect Quebec's jurisdictions.
I have a question for my colleague. Does he not know that, right now in Quebec, IUD fittings, for example, are not covered by insurance? Women have to pay every month for their method of contraception, which costs between $20 and $30. Many women choose not to take contraceptives.
Why not simply join a program that will give all women free access to their choice of contraception?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:15:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my best regards to the minister. I thank her for her very good question.
I will use the same wording to answer. Does she not know that Quebec is asking for health transfers? Does she not know that Quebec needs unconditional transfers? Does she not know about the health care funding deficit? Does she not know that if Ottawa stopped saying no to health transfers, we might not be where we are today?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:16:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by just taking a moment to congratulate the citizens of the United States of America and the rule of law that has prevailed this evening. Donald J. Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts. Justice will be done in the United States, and a serial criminal, who has committed many crimes but never had to pay the price, will finally be behind bars in a matter of a few months.
I send my regards to the citizens of the United States. Tonight, the verdict is in, and Donald Trump has been found guilty on 34 counts. Finally, we see justice being served in the United States.
There are Conservatives who admire this convicted criminal. I think it is important and very relevant to the debate tonight that Conservatives have imposed five hours of debate, at a cost to Canadians of $400,000. This is being spent on a debate that Conservatives have put forward—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:17:33 p.m.
- Watch
I just want to remind members that if they have questions or comments, or if they are not interested in listening to the debate, they should ensure that they hold off until it is the appropriate time or step out of the chamber and come back when they are interested in listening to the debate.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:17:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would also suggest to Conservative members that they should not be drinking and coming into the House. It is not a good combination, and it does not look good on them. The reality is—
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:18:02 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
