SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

May/30/24 7:19:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was not an allegation, but advice, and that is quite a different matter. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Peter Julian: However, Madam Speaker, I will withdraw it if that advice was misconstrued by any member, including the member who seems to be shouting very belligerently. This debate tonight is going to cost us $400,000, which is a lot of money. Even Conservative MPs, I think, would agree to that. However, what they have proposed in this debate tonight on pharmacare is a Conservative series of motions to delete the entire bill. That is why we are spending $400,000 of taxpayers' money. That is it. That is what they have to offer tonight, which is certainly in keeping with what they have been doing since February 29. They have been trying to block, by all means possible, the passage of pharmacare. Why would they do that? Why would they waste $400,000 of taxpayers' money? Conservatives love spending money. We saw this under the Harper regime, with $30 billion given each year to overseas tax havens, tens of billions of dollars given to corporate CEOs in the oil and gas sector and $116 billion, including from the CMHC, given to banks to prop up their profits. I mean, there were unbelievable amounts of cash showered on lobbyists, on corporate CEOs and on banks. Conservatives love to spend money on anything but what actually helps people. Conservatives have raised the question today, curiously, and are spending $400,000 of taxpayers' money on a useless debate where all they are offering, in terms of motions, is deleting every single clause in the bill. There is absolutely nothing respectful of Parliament to try to put forward such a motion. They are ready to spend $400,000 to basically waste a whole evening on a useless debate about deleting the bill rather than just voting against it, which is what normal people would do. However, they are unwilling to spend a penny to help people such as Amber. Amber pays $1,000 a month for her diabetes medication. She lives in Burnaby, B.C. She has to scrimp and save; she finds it difficult to keep a roof over her head and to put food on the table. However, the member for Carleton and his entire caucus are suggesting that it is okay to burn $400,000 tonight on a useless, meaningless debate in which they are simply trying to delete every single clause of the bill. For them, it is okay to give $116 billion, including from a housing fund, for bank profits. It is okay to give tens of billions of dollars to corporate CEOs in the oil and gas sector. It is okay to put in place the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, for a loss of $30 billion each and every year over the course of the dismal Harper regime; that is nearly $300 billion that they just burned. However, when it comes to helping Amber or their own constituents with paying for diabetes medication, which can sometimes cost as much as $1,500 a month, Conservatives draw the line. They say, “No, hey, we give money to banks. We give money to oil and gas CEOs. We give money to big people. We give money to the rich. That is where we love to spend our money.” The member for Carleton, the lobbyist-in-chief of the Conservative Party, believes that this is where Canadian taxpayers' money should go, not on pharmacare and certainly not on dental care. Now, on the dental care front, Canadians have said overwhelmingly to Conservatives that they are wrong. There were 120,000 seniors getting dental services in the first three weeks. What Conservative MP, over the course of their career, can ever point to having helped people? On the NDP side of the House, we can point to 120,000 seniors, including many in Conservative ridings, who have been helped immediately by the work of the member from Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus. The NDP forced dental care through the House of Commons even though it was voted against four years ago by both Conservatives and Liberals. We certainly proved our worth to Canadians, and we have come back on pharmacare. However, Conservatives say the same thing: “We do not want to see our constituents helped.” There are 18,000 people in each Conservative riding in the country who would benefit from having diabetes medication paid for. Amber is just an example of what millions of Canadians are living with. Canadians are looking for contraception. Women are looking for their reproductive rights and freedoms. There are 25,000 on average in each and every Conservative riding in the country, and the Conservatives say, “No, we do not want to give them that money. We want to burn $400,000 on an all-evening debate about motions that would simply delete every single clause of the bill.” That is the one contribution that Conservatives have been making to the debate since February 29. On this side of the House, we actually believe in helping people, unlike the member for Carleton. He has never really held a job in his life. He worked for Dairy Queen for a few weeks, and that is it. Everything else has been given to him by the Conservative Party. In my background, I had to work as a manual labourer. I had to work in the service industries. I had to work my way through school as a teacher. I worked in a brewery. I worked in an oil refinery. I have working experience. The member for Carleton has not a whit, and maybe that is why, because every single member of the NDP caucus can point to that real-life, real-world work experience, we understand that when people are struggling to make ends meet, they actually need us to help them. Conservatives will say they want to take a few cents off a litre of gas on the price on carbon. They are going to eliminate the price on pollution, as if somehow that would help Canadians, and we know full well that already the cost of the climate crisis goes far beyond the price that it has put on pollution. The Conservatives, despite the fact that now the member for Carleton has been leader for a couple of years, have not been able to offer a single solitary thing to Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table. One could ask, if the Conservatives are bad, what about the Liberals? The reality is that the biggest fault of the Liberal government has been that it continued all the Harper practices. We still have the infamous Harper tax haven treaties still costing us $30 billion a year, according to the PBO. The government also coughed up money to the banks over COVID and was willing to spend money from the CMHC. Instead of that going to affordable housing, it went to prop up the banks, and the government has continued the oil and gas subsidies. The biggest thing that I can reproach the Liberals on is the fact that they have acted like the Conservatives, with some exceptions, and that is because the NDP has stepped up to force them to get dental care into place. That has been an undeniable success. It is the best new support for Canadians that we have seen in decades. Now with pharmacare, people like Amber can know in the next few months, once we pass this bill, that they will actually get supports, and Amber will not have to struggle to find $1,000 each month to pay for her diabetes medication. That is why I am supporting the bill, and that is why I find it ridiculous that the Conservatives are forcing, at a cost of $400,000, this ridiculous debate to delete all clauses in the bill tonight.

1339 words

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

May/30/24 7:27:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things that amazes me is the degree to which the Conservatives are so insensitive to their own constituents. One of the biggest beneficiaries of passing this legislation would be people with diabetes. Every member of Parliament has literally hundreds, if not thousands, of constituents with diabetes, and this bill is long overdue. I would like to to see it passed, and the Conservatives do not seem to want to recognize the important impact this is going to have on Canadians with diabetes. Could the member provide his thoughts on that aspect, please?

97 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/24 7:28:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the question is a very relevant one. On average, 18,000 people in each and every Conservative riding in the country, whether it is Cariboo—Prince George or Cumberland—Colchester, could benefit from the pharmacare provisions that the NDP have pushed the government to put into place, yet those members of Parliament, instead of helping their constituents, are siding with big pharma. Who are they benefiting by, for the last few months, fighting to stop this bill from helping their constituents who pay $1,000, sometimes $1,500, a month for medication? I think they need some reflection, because Conservatives are not doing anything to help their constituents at all.

114 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

May/30/24 7:29:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely fascinating, because when we look at the statistics, about a million people really do suffer from a lack of coverage. That is just the fact, in spite of the conflated numbers that the member from NDP wishes to state. Maybe the member could do his math again on behalf of all Canadians and let Canadians know how many diabetics really need this program. There are some, admittedly, who really need it, whereas many others have fantastic coverage. His foolish plan would actually take away their coverage, leaving them with less ability to choose the insulin that works well for them or the other medications that are important to their own health, and the freedom of choice that they now have. Perhaps the member could swallow his pride and get his numbers straight on behalf of Canadians.

141 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/24 7:30:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like the member. We have had a breakthrough. One Conservative has finally admitted that people actually need pharmacare. One Conservative said, “Oh gosh, yes”. His numbers are wrong, but he is right in saying that people actually need pharmacare. Why have the Conservatives been fighting tooth and nail to block this bill since February 29? Why have they been trying to stop their constituents, 18,000 of them, who he has just admitted actually need the program, from getting the program they need? There is a breakthrough tonight. Maybe this is a use for some of that $400,000 that the Conservatives are burning. If some Conservatives had the penny drop and finally realize that they are doing the wrong thing, they may start to do the right thing. That would be a benefit to all Canadians.

142 words

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

May/30/24 7:31:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member was starting to hit the nail on the head here, when he made reference to the fact that there might be some benefit in terms of late-night sitting tonight, if somehow we can get the Conservatives to flip-flop on this particular issue. It is encouraging, and the first step is to recognize not only people with diabetes, but also the millions of Canadians who would directly benefit because of contraceptive coverage. I believe it is somewhere around nine million women who would, potentially, directly benefit from this aspect of the program. Can the member comment?

101 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/24 7:31:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is very important, too. There are 25,000 people in each and every Conservative riding in the country who would benefit from the provisions around contraception. Conservatives should be embracing that. On the issues of family planning, women's bodily autonomy, reproductive rights and freedoms, if Conservatives actually believe in freedoms, they should be supporting this bill. I am hoping, perhaps, there may be some usefulness for the $400,000 that the Conservatives are spending tonight to try to delete all sections of the bill. If one, or maybe two or three Conservative MPs wake up and actually vote in favour of the bill, maybe it will be worth it.

113 words

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

May/30/24 7:32:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to this legislation today. There are some aspects of public policy that I have had a great deal of interest in over the years, not only here in Ottawa, but also during the days I spent in the Manitoba legislature. Canadians have a justified expectation that provincial and federal governments will work together on the important issue of health care. It is part of our Canadian identity. In many ways, it is one of the biggest treasures we have as Canadians. At the end of the day, when I look at this legislation, Bill C-64, I see it as a significant step forward in recognizing just how important it is, when we talk about health care, that medications need to be incorporated in a very real and tangible way into the discussions. I think of the number of people over the years who have ended up going to emergency services, had a premature death or were in situations where there were additional costs for health care. Imagine the number of different pharmacare programs that are scattered throughout the provinces. Even within a province, there are multiple different forms of pharmacare programs being provided. However, even with all of those hundred-plus national or provincial insurance programs that are out there, there are still many Canadians, hundreds of thousands, who have absolutely no insurance for prescribed medicines. This policy that is sound and makes sense. Therefore, I am bewildered as to why, yet again, we see the official Reform Party across the way saying no to Canadians on what I believe is a significant step forward toward a national pharmacare program. It would start off with two medications, in two areas. I believe Canadians would overwhelmingly be in support of this. Whether it is people in Quebec, Manitoba, B.C. or Atlantic Canada, we will find resounding support for this initiative, and I would like to think that Conservatives, at some point in time, will open their eyes and have a better appreciation for the true benefits of this program. This is not new for me. I have been talking about it in this House for many years. For the last half-dozen or so years, I have raised the issue. I have presented petitions on the issue. Whenever I had the opportunity to highlight the importance of pharmacare, I would often make reference to the importance of the federal government working with provincial governments across the country to encourage more participation in a truly national program. Interprovincial migration happens all the time. I have family members who live in different provinces. In fact, I have a brother who lives in B.C. and a sister who lives in Newfoundland and Labrador. The types of coverage vary. We all have opinions. Because this includes medication for people with diabetes and contraceptives for women, we would all benefit directly because we all have family members or know people who would benefit from that. I would personally love to see an add-on to it with respect to shingles. I understand that in some provinces there is better coverage than in other provinces. That is one reason I would argue, as my daughter has in Manitoba, that we need to get provinces to come to the table in such a way that we could recognize the best pharmacare program that we could have, while expanding it to what it ideally could and should be into the future, with a higher sense of co-operation. I believe that is the answer. I think it was back in 2016 or 2017, I recall being on Keewatin Street in the north end of Winnipeg, asking people to sign a petition on the importance of national health care and on a national pharmacare program. The NDP House leader made reference to a Quebec union and its thoughts about ensuring not only that this program sees the light of the day, but also that all politicians get behind it. There is a saying from the national nurses union that health care workers understand and they appreciate. If one goes into a hospital, one will find, at least in Manitoba, that one's medications are covered. When one leaves the hospital, depending on their situation and what kind of a plan they might have, they will get their medication. Many may not have a plan, so they will not get the medications, and often, the person returns to a hospital situation. I have talked to individuals, particularly seniors, who talk about medications versus food. That is a real discussion that takes place, sadly. From a personal point of view, the pharmacare program has been more important to me than the dental care program, and we have seen the success of the dental care program. As a government, with the Prime Minister, we have seen how much Liberals value our health care system, our Canadian identity, virtually from the get-go with the buying of prescription medications to be circulated in order to support provinces, until not that long ago when we made a contribution of $198 billion over the next 10 years to support our health care system so that we can enhance programs such as staffing requirements, long-term care and mental health. Those are expectations our constituents have. That is the type of thing that we are delivering because we have seen agreement after agreement with provinces and Ottawa dealing with health care, and we recognize just how important the issue is. We continue to be able to work with the different jurisdictions. I believe that when we think about issues like mental health, dental services, pharmaceuticals and long-term care, they are all things that I believe, through the Canada Health Act, we have a responsibility to show leadership for. I like to think that whether it is a territory or a province, there is a some semblance of what we could expect and that it would be of a similar nature. That is why we have transfer payments, equalization payments and so much more. That is why we have a government that not only understands it, but it brings in budgetary measures to support it and legislative measures like we are debating today on Bill C-64. The Conservative Party needs to wake up and understand what Canadians want. That is better quality health care, and Bill C-64 delivers just that. Conservatives should be voting in favour of it, not filibustering.

1091 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/30/24 7:42:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not get to say this very often, almost never, in the House, but that speech by the member was so much better than the previous drivel that we heard from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. It was not good, but better than what the NDP House leader from B.C. had said, which was incoherent babble. I do have a question for the member, which I asked the previous health minister and the current health minister at committee: How many provincial health ministers at FPT meetings asked for a pharmacare program? I have talked to the health minister in Saskatchewan, and this was never on the agenda at any FPT meeting. How many provincial health ministers asked the NDP-Liberal government to bring in this program?

132 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/24 7:43:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will do better than that because I have been talking about this and campaigning on this type of issue for many years, and a vast majority of the constituents, the people whom I represent, want to see this. They want to see strong national leadership, and we are getting that through the Prime Minister, through the current government and the collection of Liberal MPs, and we are grateful for the support we get from the NDP. Because of that, we are going to see it happen, and as a direct result, millions of Canadians could realize the benefits. Our health care system is being improved upon, and believe it or not, that is something that the member who posed the question would also like to see.

129 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

May/30/24 7:44:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, I will actually ask the member a question about the legislation. In Bill C-64, clause 6, “Payments”, it says very specifically that it is supposed “to provide universal, single-payer, first-dollar coverage”. First-dollar coverage means that if a private insurance company today covers diabetic medication, it will not be able to do so if this legislation comes into force. In fact, it would be a crime. It would be illegal to do that, which means that there is a great potential for Canadians who are currently insured for their diabetes medication with a private insurer to lose it. They are actually the majority in this country. How many Canadians would lose the coverage that they currently have because of this first-dollar coverage found in clause 6 of Bill C-64?

140 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/24 7:45:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me answer the member by asking this: How many of his constituents are not going to have the types of benefits this legislation would provide if the Conservatives prevail and this legislation were to die? We are talking about hundreds, if not thousands, of his constituents who would not be able to have the medications they require at the cost we are suggesting, which is zero. The member needs to reflect on that. He is denying his constituents the opportunity to receive those types of benefits. We are not talking about a few thousand constituents; we are talking about millions, nationwide.

104 words

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

May/30/24 7:46:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my Liberal friend a question. I come from Ontario, and the Conservative government has something called the Ontario drug benefit plan. It already covers diabetes and reproductive medications. To compare it to what my colleague was asking, there are a lot of people with private insurance, and they have this coverage. However, this plan may only cover certain medications that are not really specific to an individual who can tolerate different types of medications. Can the member please confirm for Canadians that nobody would lose the medication that they are used to utilizing and that they stay healthy on because of this new program?

110 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/24 7:47:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the constituents whom he represents that what he just said is not accurate. He tried to give the impression that the people of Ontario do not have to pay anything for diabetes medications. There are things such as deductions and a whole spectrum of ways in which there are direct and indirect charges for people who need insulin. I think the member does a disservice in trying to discredit the legislation, when I am sure he knows better, as the Conservative leader ought to know, that millions of Canadians would in fact benefit by the passage of this legislation. The Conservatives really need to ask themselves, collectively, in front of a mirror, “Why are we trying to deny Canadians these benefits?”

128 words

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC)

May/30/24 7:48:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, which seeks to support the implementation of a national, universal pharmacare program. I am always ready to champion a federalism that meets the needs of all Canadians, but there are a number of things that bother me about Bill C-64. Apart from the fact that it interferes in provincial jurisdictions, it was born of the Liberals' need to keep a minority government alive. That is why we are debating this bill tonight. Another thing that bothers me about Bill C-64 is that the Liberals are using the NDP like a lapdog, keeping it warm and cozy, only too happy to give in to the NDP's costly demands, while keeping it on a tight leash in a minority government that is on life support until the fall of 2025. Since this bill does not respect provincial jurisdictions, it is obviously not legitimate. I have a hard time sorting out the reasons for this interference in provincial jurisdictions, which has become chronic over time, since the arrival of this Liberal government. I am even beginning to wonder whether the Bloc Québécois is not starting to rub off on the Liberal-NDP government in the House on other subjects. One things is certain. Canadians are finding it increasingly difficult to identify with those who have become spokespeople for every issue instead of minding their own business. The Bloc Québécois is another example. On many issues, they are undermining the real well-being of Canadians, and especially Quebeckers, by playing provincial politics in the federal arena. They are confusing everyone. In its current form, Bill C-64 would replace the private insurance system with a single insurance system. It would be a federal monopoly administered by a centralizing and incompetent Liberal government that has trouble managing its own departments and portfolios. For example, I am thinking about this government's inability to issue passports on time, which we experienced two years ago. I am not even sure what to say about the government's financial management, when it keeps spending borrowed money on the backs of future generations and dragging us towards a chronic and structural deficit. It is distressing to see a Liberal government that is incompetent across the board being supported by the NDP and, unfortunately, all too often by the Bloc Québécois as well. Canadians are increasingly vulnerable, not because they lack access to medication in the provinces, but because they can no longer make ends meet. They have to make difficult choices between food and housing. Bill C-64 is just another idea where the expense is not worth the cost. Even more of taxpayers' money is being wasted in the expansion of the federal government, which is becoming increasingly intrusive and costly. Bill C-64 was born of noble intentions, but implementing it would create yet another inefficient and costly bureaucracy on top of the one that has been far too intrusive since 2015. Currently, according to the brief submitted by Innovative Medicines Canada to the Standing Committee on Health, 97.2% of Canada's population benefits from access to prescription drug coverage through a public or private pharmacare plan. However, one in 10 Canadians are not enrolled in a government program that would cover the costs, even though they are entitled to it. If we want to improve coverage, then we need to better inform Canadians. We do not need to destroy what is already in place to rebuild on a new foundation that has not been proven. The precursor pharmacare system in the province of Quebec, which was implemented 28 years ago, has been proven. The system is already practically universal. Common sense tells us that to improve coverage and access we just need to have targeted policies for the populations that do not have access. It is unnecessary to demolish what is already working, contrary to what the Liberals are currently proposing. Monopolies of any kind have rarely served the interests of citizens. Replacing all the private drug plans entails major risks, including a reduction in the quality of service. As a result of competition, approximately twice as many new drugs are made available to patients on the private market in half the time. Canadians appreciate this efficient system. Because it is a high-quality system, hospitals are less crowded, which in turn means lower costs. As I was saying earlier, this is yet another attempt by the Liberal government to interfere in provincial jurisdictions without consultation. The health minister suggested that it would be absolutely out of the question for Quebec to give Ottawa free rein to create a pharmacare program in the province, unless it gives Quebec the right to opt out with full financial compensation, which the Prime Minister has no intention of doing. The same goes for Alberta. The real reason behind this bill is that the Liberals have no choice but to bring forward this proposal because it is a condition of the NDP's support for the Liberal government and its survival, which has been at risk since its re-election. They outright ignore all the misgivings about the need for the bill and especially the costs associated with implementing it, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us. The survival of the costly coalition is at stake. They are trying once again to establish an even more centralist government, forgetting the country's federative nature and attempting to make it a unitary state. The government should be more pragmatic and less ideological about this bill, otherwise all its efforts will be counterproductive. Instead of thinking about kickbacks to stay in power, the Liberal government should recognize the following facts. This is not a pharmacare plan. It is an empty promise that will not cover the vast majority of drugs used by Canadians. After nine years of Liberal governance, the current Prime Minister has made a lot of promises. He promised affordable housing, and then he doubled the cost of housing. He promised that the carbon tax would cost nothing, and now we learn that 60% of families are paying more because of the carbon tax. He promised that taxes would be lowered but they went up. He promised safe streets, but ushered in crime, chaos, drugs and disorder. This Liberal-NDP government cannot be trusted to deliver anything worthwhile to Canadians. In fact, the people have been betrayed, along with the working class too, to keep the Prime Minister in power while he doubles the cost of housing and quadruples the carbon tax. Most Canadians already have prescription drug coverage. Many worry about losing the coverage they already have, coverage that works for them. There are also serious concerns about the cost of this proposal. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that it could cost tens of billions of dollars. Canadians cannot afford it at a time when they cannot even afford to pay their bills because of this Prime Minister. No Canadian wants a system that performs less well, offers less coverage, costs more and creates a massive new bureaucracy in Ottawa. In closing, I want to reassure concerned voters who are not buying it. The common-sense Conservatives are going to abolish the carbon tax and bring down the prices of the basic goods that Canadians need. Canadians do not need legislation like this in these difficult times. What they need is an election as soon as possible to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

1275 words

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

May/30/24 7:57:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Madam Speaker, we are talking about pharmacare and the member is talking about cutting the carbon tax. Let me read a quote from Linda Silas: “Every day, nurses witness the profound impact of poor access to medications on their patients’ health.” She has addressed this to all members of Parliament. Further down she says, “Get it done for the sake of our patients, for the future of our health care system and for the well-being of our country. VOTE “YES” ON BILL C-64.” Linda happens to be the president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions. Could the member provide his thoughts on why the Conservative Party is going against our professional health care providers, who really want to see this legislation pass because they understand it?

136 words

Mr. Jacques Gourde

May/30/24 7:58:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear what Canadians think about this during an election, which may even come this summer. That would be for the greater good of all Canadians. If this government has the courage to find out what the people want, it should call an election. Otherwise, let it continue to follow the NDP's lead.

59 words

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

May/30/24 7:58:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the member has had a long career and that he lived through the Harper regime, the most expensive regime in Canadian history. Some $116 billion was given to the big banks to increase their profits. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, $30 billion a year went to tax havens thanks to Mr. Harper and his team. Of course, there was also all the money given to CEOs in the oil patch. The costly Conservatives spent a lot of money on the rich and affluent. However, now we are talking about pharmacare, which will help people in his riding. It will help 18,000 people with diabetes who are struggling every month to pay sometimes up to $1,000 for their medication. The question I want to ask my friend is very simple. Why are the Conservatives so keen on spending money on billionaires, CEOs and banks, but do not want to give a penny to people struggling to pay for their medication, such as diabetes medication?

176 words

Mr. Jacques Gourde

May/30/24 8:00:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague, who was here when I was part of an excellent Conservative government, that the national debt was around $500 billion. It is now over $1.25 trillion. That alone is costing Canadians an enormous amount. Right now, the Liberals are spending more on debt interest than on health transfers. We are paying a huge amount of interest. The 7% that we pay on goods and services goes toward paying the debt instead of toward health care. That is because the NDP is forcing the Liberals to overspend.

98 words

Ms. Joanne Thompson (St. John's East, Lib.)

May/30/24 8:01:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in getting my colleague's response to the reality. As a community health nurse many years ago and someone who led, for a number of years, a multidisciplinary team at a community health centre that was very much about vulnerability, I saw time and time again the chronic illness implications of diabetics who did not have access to appropriate treatment. I saw repeatedly and was able to demonstrate through our data systems the cost to our health care system when someone with a chronic illness continued to move to the more severe aspects of their disease process because they did not have access to care. I hear time and time again at committee and in the House that my colleagues are very interested in cost savings. Could the member please explain to me why he is reluctant to move this legislation forward in light of the very well demonstrated implications of cost savings in our health system?

163 words