SoVote

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

May/30/24 8:14:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as a fellow Manitoban, it would be impolite of me to not also wish Cailey a happy birthday. To my hon. colleague's wife, I hope it is a fun day together tomorrow. There are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country who do not have access to the medication they need. I appreciate that, in some instances, there are provincial health plans or private plans that cover certain medications, but the reality is that this is simply not enough. I would respond to my colleague by referencing something my colleague from St. John's East, who happens to be in close proximity to me at the moment, mentioned earlier: We are being smart with taxpayer dollars, and this is an investment in taxpayers. It is an investment in their health and in their future. The more we can get ahead of proactively addressing health care challenges people are facing, the healthier people are going to be down the line. That, in and of itself, is smart tax policy.

175 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

May/30/24 8:15:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, early in my career as a politician, I was in a meeting with two young people who had type 1 diabetes. They came from two different provinces, so it was very interesting to hear the story of those young people and their parents. What stuck with me was that one young person lived in one province and had an important, often life-saving device, and the other young person from a different province did not have it. The reason they did not have it is that it was costing them a significant amount of money every month. The dad had been hurt on the job; he was now living on very minimal income, and they had to take the device away from their child. Could the member talk about how this would really create that important factor of universality so that all young people who have type 1 diabetes get exactly the same appropriate care across Canada?

159 words

Mr. Ben Carr

May/30/24 8:16:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. When we use the word “universal”, it is to ensure we do not have this kind of hodgepodge patchwork health care system across provinces, but that any Canadian, wherever they live in the country, is able to access these medicines when they need it. I mentioned in my remarks that I worked with a lot of first nations kids in northern Manitoba in particular. Because there is so much migration within the province through to the city of Winnipeg, as a result of historical harms and all the reasons we know indigenous people are disadvantaged in this country, they are disproportionately susceptible to many of the challenges that come along with diabetes and other poor health outcomes. For first nations kids, in particular, and indigenous kids as a whole, as well as people such as the constituents she was talking about, the legislation would allow for us to fill some of the gaps that exist and make sure they get the type of health services that they need in this country. I am proud to work alongside her and other members across the way who support this legislation.

197 words

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

May/30/24 8:18:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here and talk about what is being billed as universal pharmacare but what we know is not universal pharmacare. Before I go down the path of our debate tonight, it is about 5:18 p.m. back home in British Columbia, which would mean that my granddaughter Ren is being picked up from our house. She watches every time I am on, and she always talks to the screen. I am going to say hi to my granddaughter Ren and tell her that papa loves her and will be home soon. We are talking about Bill C-64 tonight. We are talking about a bill that is literally, for Canadians who are watching, four pages long. That is it. It is being billed as universal pharmacare. We have those who are in the audience to listen to this speech tonight at 8:19 p.m; it is a packed house in the gallery. Canadians at home are watching this important debate. It is an important debate. There are over 27 million Canadians who are insured and have private plans. There are approximately 1.1 million Canadians who are under-insured or do not have plans. This has been said before by my esteemed colleague from Cumberland—Colchester, a former physician. He and I sit on the health committee. We work together in the best interests of Canadians and the constituents we represent. When the government forced closure on Bill C-64 and started to ram it through the House, we rolled up our sleeves in good faith and submitted in excess of 43 amendments. These are amendments that the Conservatives and the other opposition parties were asked to submit without the opportunity to hear from the witnesses. Witnesses gave 10 hours of testimony. Surprisingly enough, the two most prominent experts in Canada with respect to pharmacare were not invited. We did not get a chance to hear from them. There were 43 amendments that we tried to introduce in good faith. The government always says, with its NDP coalition partners, to trust it. We should just get the bill to committee, and we will do great work there. We will work collaboratively with all parties to make reasonable, needed amendments to these watered-down pieces of legislation. It does not work that way. For five and a half hours, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby filibustered each and every one of the amendments. He says that it was Conservatives who had been blocking the bill the whole way. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Todd Doherty: The member heckles me and laughs at me right now from down at the far end. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, and he is a fellow British Columbian. We have worked collaboratively before. At every step of the way, we introduced common-sense amendments. If I may, I will read into the record snippets of a few: “universal, in respect of pharmacare, means providing uniform coverage to all residents of all provinces and territories, including Indigenous peoples.” That was one that was voted down by the Liberal-NDP coalition. Another amendment was this: “payments to the province or territory in order to provide, to Canadians without access to any other prescription drug coverage plan, public pharmacare coverage for or to increase any existing public pharmacare coverage for and to provide universal, single-payer, first-dollar coverage for”. Does that sound like Conservatives are trying to block this piece of legislation? It does not. How about this? This one is very straightforward: “make progress on providing universal coverage of pharmaceutical”. I offer that to the House because, at every step of the way and throughout the next couple of hours of this debate, we will hear interventions from our Liberal colleagues and our NDP colleagues that will say that Conservatives tried to block this piece of legislation every step of the way. Those of us who have been tasked, on this side of the House, to work collaboratively with the other side in the health committee worked diligently to try to come up with an actual piece of legislation that was accurate and that provided the necessary tools and meat for such an important topic. We were shut down at every step of the way, primarily by our colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, who was doing yeoman service for his Liberal coalition on the other side, as most of them sat silent. I want to remind the House as well that all provinces have their own type of pharmacare and that 97.2% of Canadians have some form of coverage. This is a $2-billion cost, a program cost. Surely, for the one million or 1.1 million Canadians who are without coverage, we could have found a different way of doing this, a better way of doing this, that would not have put in jeopardy the plans that 27 million other Canadians have. We have spoken with insurers. We have spoken with businesses that offer private insurance to their employees, and they have questions: Who is going to pay? What happens to their employees? What happens to those who are insured by them? Insurers have concerns. Canadians have concerns. Moreover, I will offer this. In last night's committee of the whole debate, a lot was said about this plan being universal pharmacare. We know that we have constituents who are phoning and saying that they are going to the pharmacy today and asking if they can get their medications paid for. The reality is this: No, they cannot. This was confirmed by the Minister of Health last night when I asked him if Bill C-64 provides any government funding for those struggling or inflicted with cardiac issues. The answer was no. Does Bill C-64 provide any funding for those with ALS? The answer was no. Does Bill C-64 provide any government funding for those who are struggling with asthma? It does not. Does Bill C-64 provide any funding for any medications other than contraception or diabetes? His answer was no, that it does not. This is not universal pharmacare. It provides the necessary and very important medications for those struggling or living with diabetes and it provides contraception. It does not offer what it is being billed as. That is exactly what we are telling the government. Tell Canadians exactly what it is. Let us be honest with Canadians. This is not universal pharmacare. That is where we have problems with this bill.

1113 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/30/24 8:27:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. That is not the reason why the members of the Conservative Party have difficulty with this bill. The reality is that when it comes to diabetes and contraceptives, millions of Canadians will actually have benefits that many of them would never have had without the passage of this legislation. The member might be sympathetic as an individual member, but let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party of Canada, under the current far-right leadership of the leader today, does not support national pharmacare in any fashion whatsoever. The member should not be trying to confuse the debate on this issue, to try to imply that it is some bogus reason as to why they are not supporting it. He might support it individually, but the party, the official opposition, does not.

139 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

May/30/24 8:28:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at every step of the way, we asked for clarification from the minister and his charges for definitions and terms that were contained within this four-page document. The member would like to stand up, wildly move his hands, speak very loudly and conflate the issues. This is not universal pharmacare. The Liberals are billing it as some “be-all and end-all”, which it is not. The member knows better and he needs to be honest with Canadians.

83 words

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

May/30/24 8:29:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy speeches from my friend, and I like working with him, but they must be kidding. We see tonight what Conservatives have done in terms of the bill. They had an opportunity to put forward report stage amendments that actually, in their minds at least, would improve the bill; instead, they decided to waste $400,000 of taxpayer money by deleting every single clause of the bill. It is just a complete waste of time at committee. The Conservatives know that many of their amendments were not even in order, and they withdrew a number of them as well. Therefore, I find a bit rich the idea that Conservatives were working in good faith at committee. I know the member understands his riding. In Quesnel, Williams Lake and Prince George, those folks have been signing up for dental care. Many of them need access to pharmacare. In some cases, the member has constituents who are paying $1,000 a month for diabetes medication, and he is standing in the way of their getting the supports they need. Therefore, will he stand up for his constituents and will he actually say to his Conservative colleagues, “Let us support the bill. Let us get this done so that people with diabetes and people who need contraception can actually have that paid for”?

226 words

Taxpayer

Mr. Todd Doherty

May/30/24 8:31:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a little rich from a member who has supported he most costly government in the history of our country at every step of the way. He approved the $61-billion budget that the government announced just recently. At every step of the way, the member has done the bidding of his Liberal coalition. He has covered up scandal after scandal. The member also knows that I stand up for my riding of Cariboo—Prince George and I stand up for British Columbians each and every day because, God only knows, the British Columbians from the NDP do not.

103 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/24 8:31:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will come back on that. Of course, the NDP members got dental care for British Columbians. They are getting pharmacare for British Columbians, affordable housing and anti-scab legislation, all of the things that the Conservative caucus had been unable to do. The reality is that Conservative MPs just have not worked very hard. We are not asking that member, who I know is devoted to public service, and the rest of his colleagues to actually lift a finger to deliver pharmacare for their constituents. All we are asking them is to stop standing in the way, stop forcing these meaningless debates like tonight's, with deleting all clauses of the bill, and let the NDP work on behalf of their constituents, so that all British Columbians and all Canadians—

134 words

Caucus

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/24 8:32:37 p.m.
Watch

I will interrupt the member, just so we have time for the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

19 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

May/30/24 8:32:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there were 43 amendments. Only an NDP member would say that they worked hard for two years and came up with a four-page document. We had 43 amendments, and for five and a half hours we had to listen to a filibuster, as we are tonight.

49 words

Mr. Angelo Iacono (Alfred-Pellan, Lib.)

May/30/24 8:33:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in this important debate. The legislation before us contains the four principles of accessibility, affordability, appropriateness and universality. Today, I will speak to the principle of appropriateness, which relates to the appropriate prescribing and use of medicines. I will outline the importance of achieving a pan-Canadian strategy on the appropriate use of drugs, which is a key feature of this legislation. Notably, the World Health Organization defines “appropriate use” as follows: “patients receive medications appropriate to their clinical needs, in doses that meet their own individual requirements, for an adequate period of time, and at the lowest cost to them and their community.” Prescription drugs play a critical role in the day-to-day for Canadians. Every year, over 750 million prescriptions are filled by 18 million people in Canada. It is estimated that in any given month, 55% of adults and 23% of children and youth will take at least one prescription medication. Getting the right medication at the right time can be life-changing. Whether it is receiving a prescription for an inhaler to help an asthmatic patient breathe better or anti-hypertensive medication to bring down blood pressure and decrease the risk of heart attack or stroke, medications have the power to restore health and improve a person's quality of life. However, getting the wrong medication at the wrong time can cause significant unintended harms. In fact, adverse drug events are a leading cause of unplanned hospital visits, contributing to over two million emergency department visits and 700,000 hospital admissions in Canada every year. Examples of appropriate use and action include an informed conversation between a patient and their health care provider on the best treatment to improve their health, opting to stop a medication that was once helpful and is now causing more harm than good, or a public awareness campaign on how to use antibiotics wisely. Unfortunately, a growing body of evidence suggests that inappropriate prescribing and use happen more often than they should. Consider that 21% of adults in Canada between the ages of 40 and 79 are currently taking more than five prescription medications at a time. This is called polypharmacy and it can increase a person's risk of falls by 75%, among other impacts. Consider the story heard from a clinician about a patient who was taking over 25 different medications, the combined effects of which were taking a serious toll on their health and quality of life. This clinician stressed to us the significant time and effort required to support the patient and caregiver to slowly discontinue the inappropriate medications. A striking takeaway from this conversation was that this case was far from an anomaly in their practice. Inappropriate prescribing can threaten patient safety and lead to negative health, social and financial impacts. Other significant examples, such as increased antibiotic resistance due to overuse that threatens patient safety, the risks of addiction and overdose from opioid misuse, and many problems and injuries related to the long-term use of sleeping pills, show this issue is widespread. It is estimated that approximately 1.9 million Canadian seniors regularly use at least one inappropriate medication, which can lead to dizziness, memory problems, hospitalization and even death. The cost of these inappropriate prescriptions is over $419 million per year, and it rises to over $1.4 billion if the costs of hospital visits and the impacts of other harms are included. Appropriate use was established as a shared priority among federal, provincial and territorial governments. Jurisdictions, health organizations and even local providers have implemented a variety of initiatives and programs to address the issue at hand. There is good work happening across the country, but those doing this important work have called for a unified approach so we can increase its impact and reach. While there are several pockets of excellence addressing appropriate use, persistent gaps and challenges exist. Inconsistent reach, overlapping efforts and even duplication have limited the scale-up and spread of promising approaches across the health care system, which limits our ability to make these benefits available to people across the country. Without a devoted strategy to better connect our siloed work and improve collaboration, we risk stretching our already limited health system resources, and we will miss an opportunity to serve patients with the highest quality of care. Other countries around the world have shown us that addressing appropriate use works and makes a difference in the health and safety of their citizens. Countries such as Australia, the U.K. and the Netherlands have developed a coordinated solution that addresses appropriate use at multiple levels and works to ensure that everyone, including patients, prescribers and the public, is motivated to make the necessary changes. In doing so, they have managed to improve prescribing and use behaviours while reducing the harms and health system costs of inappropriate care. Developing and implementing a pan-Canadian strategy that builds on this learning would help expand the impact and reach of successful appropriate use programs to better serve prescribers, patients, and diverse communities across the country. To date, efforts to improve appropriate use, detect and respond to patient safety issues as they arise have been hampered by the uneven ability of prescribing data. This has significantly limited the supports available to patients and prescribers to make the best decisions regarding their care. Support to enhance the collection of and access to prescribing data will need to underpin any strategy. Addressing appropriate use of prescription drugs also presents a unique opportunity to tackle some of the most topical challenges facing our health system, such as appropriate therapies for mental health; access to safe, long-term care; and optimizing primary care. The prescribing of antipsychotics in long-term care is a prime example where, at any given time, it is estimated that nearly one in four long-term care residents was receiving an antipsychotic drug while having no clinical reason for its use. These medications put patients at increased risk of falls, fractures and even strokes. Ultimately, healthier patients and fewer adverse drug events puts less stress on our health professionals and health care system. Patients, health care providers and partners all agree that now is the time to act, and a pan-Canadian appropriate use strategy would bring the vision into reality. This means directing efforts towards implementing widespread programs and initiatives, collaborating closely to make meaningful change, ensuring that health policy promotes positive actions and bolstering evaluation of programs so we can scale and spread those programs that we know would make a difference. We are already getting started. Last spring, the Canadian drug agency transition office established an appropriate use advisory committee, comprising organizations, prescribers, patients, insurers and health system partners, to provide guidance and advice for the development of a pan-Canadian appropriate use strategy. The committee will soon issue its final report. It is also working closely with key partners, including Choosing Wisely Canada and the Canadian Medication Appropriateness and Deprescribing Network to better coordinate existing efforts to further enhance its impact. New health challenges continue to emerge, and the need for a coordinated appropriate use strategy to enhance quality of care, improve patient health and promote the judicious and equitable use of health care resources has become even more critical. Members can see that this strategy, guided by the CDA, would be an important element of moving forward with national pharmacare. Addressing appropriate use on a national scale would confront these challenges, knitting together our existing patchwork of programs to provide much-needed support for patients and prescribers while improving safety and outcomes, ultimately reducing the cost of burdens caused by inappropriate care. We look forward to working closely with patients, prescribers, health partners and jurisdictions in making the program a reality.

1310 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

May/30/24 8:42:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with respect to all Canadians such as physicians, nurse practitioners and pharmacists who are listening and who are out there prescribing medications this evening, I find it fascinating that the member would be suggesting that their appropriateness is actually inappropriate and that we need the government now to tell physicians what to prescribe. Think about someone with hypertension, sitting in their family doctor's office if they are fortunate enough not to be one of the seven million people without a family doctor. What is the family doctor going to do? Are they going to call the “1-800-who-cares” phone number provided by the people who cannot even get them a passport, and wait on hold while they say which medication should be prescribed? I find that to be an absolutely terrifying prospect for Canada's incredibly well-trained frontline prescribers in this country who have the independent ability to make those decisions, the best decisions on behalf of the patients, many of whom they have known for an incredibly long time. Maybe the member could answer this: Would they now be setting up a 1-800 number for doctors to ask which medication should be prescribed? Perhaps, as I mentioned, they could call it “1-800-who-cares”.

217 words

Mr. Angelo Iacono

May/30/24 8:44:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by first saying hello to my 10-year-old boy, who is watching. I know it is past his bedtime, but his mommy has given him an opportunity to hear daddy speak. Second, I would like to say that is not what I said in my speech. Maybe the member should consult a hearing doctor. Why am I not surprised by the question from my Conservative colleague? Pharmacare, for example, is about access to contraceptives for women, which is clearly not within the priorities of the opposition party. My colleague opposite and his party have shown every woman in Canada that when it comes to contraception, they are on their own. Canadians are listening, and by now they know that when it comes to health care, they cannot trust the Conservatives, just like when the member said, making fun of the 1-800 number, “Who cares?"

155 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/30/24 8:45:11 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, it has been disappointing to listen to the debate and how partisan it has been. I wonder whether the member can remind us of what the bill would do. As this is just the beginning of getting universal pharmacare started, what would the legislation do to ensure that more work is done to improve on it as time goes on?

61 words

Mr. Angelo Iacono

May/30/24 8:45:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know very well where the members of the official opposition stands on the bill. Obviously they are against it. They do not care, and it is very easy for them to be critical about it. I thank my colleague for the tremendous work they did in shaping the bill with the government. We both understand how important it is. For example, contraceptive drugs were chosen as part of the next step in universal pharmacare specifically because contraception improves the equality of all women when they are able to receive proper care for their needs. It reduces the risk of unintended pregnancies and improves reproductive rights. Also, the bill would help all diabetic patients access proper care and be well treated.

123 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.)

May/30/24 8:47:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, I think throughout the debate on Bill C-64, whether at second reading stage or at committee, we have seen nothing but fearmongering on the part of the Conservatives, for a simple reason: They do not support the bill. They do not want Canadians to have pharmacare. In fact, they support a private health care system. That is why they have chosen every which way to put up blockades against the bill by inventing stuff. We heard the member opposite, the health critic for the official opposition, throughout the committee process make things up while witnesses kept telling him that was not the case. He is still repeating the same mistruths. I want to ask the member, who gave an excellent speech, this: How does he feel the legislation, if passed by Parliament, would help his constituents get the medications they so deserve and need?

147 words

Mr. Angelo Iacono

May/30/24 8:48:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, through our bilateral health agreements with the provinces and territories for the Canadian dental care plan and now pharmacare, we are delivering on the promise that every Canadian deserves better health care. Thanks to this plan, nine million women and gender-diverse Canadians across the country will be able to access the contraception and reproductive autonomy they deserve. In addition, it will help 3.7 million Canadians living with diabetes get the medication and resources they need. Canadians should never have to choose between their health and their—

91 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/24 8:48:55 p.m.
Watch

Give a foot; take a mile. I should know better. I wish your son good night. I am sure he was happy to see his dad working tonight. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

36 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

May/30/24 8:49:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on behalf of the people of Edmonton Manning tonight. When a bill is brought before Committee, I expect that during the study done there that committee members would be able to make amendments that would improve the legislation. Sadly, that has not happened with Bill C-64, the pharmacare act, which is probably because the legislation is so flawed that nothing can fix it. The only proper fix is to bury it. I wish that tonight we were debating the merits of a proposed national pharmacare program. Many Canadians would like to see such a thing, although they might not be so enthusiastic once they saw the price tag. The only resemblance the bill before us has to pharmacare is in the name. If we had asked Canadians what they expected to receive from the NDP-Liberal coalition besides ever-increasing taxes, high inflation, sky-high crime rates and housing shortages, they would probably have said, “Well, at least they have promised pharmacare.” If we had asked what that meant, they would have said, “free prescription drugs for everyone: drugs to treat heart disease or cancer, life-saving drugs and maybe penicillin to treat any number of less serious illnesses”. Instead, what the government is offering is a pledge to consider funding contraceptives and diabetes drugs. It is not a pharmacare plan; it is an empty promise. It is not what anyone was expecting, but it is no surprise. It is not as if the Liberals really want a national pharmacare program. If they did, they would not have needed the NDP to push them into creating the bill before us. The Liberals' plan is empty and it is pretty simple. They want to delay as much as possible to convince the NDP that a plan is coming and that therefore the incompetent government must be propped up. I have to give the Liberals credit for their political skill in this matter. They have the NDP so completely fooled that the government faces no chance of defeat no matter the scandals and no matter how much Liberal polices are hurting Canadians. The NDP is blindly accepting a Liberal promise, apparently unwilling to admit that they have been fooled. I think it is safe to predict that when Canadians go to the polls, whether it is in October 2025 or earlier, the NDP will not be able to point to a functioning pharmacare program, not even the limited one that the bill calls for. However, the promise will have accomplished its purpose: keeping an undeserving government in power. It is the Canadian electorate that will hold both the NDP and the Liberals accountable for their actions. It is the Canadian people who will elect a Conservative government that actually cares about serving them and does not just care about political power. The bill is being shoved through in haste by a government that is so desperate for approval. The Minister of Health is assuring Canadians that the pharmacare plan should not jeopardize the drug coverage that millions of Canadians have through private insurers. I am sure he is well-intentioned when he makes that statement; he may even believe his words, but good intentions are not reality. The CEO of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association says that the bill could indeed cause disruption for those who have existing drug plans. Either he is right or the minister is right; it cannot be both. Given the Liberal track record, I suspect the minister is indulging in some wishful thinking, which is not surprising from a government that thinks budgets magically balance themselves, something that has not happened under the current Prime Minister. By using time allocation, the government is rushing the bill through the House without opportunity for proper scrutiny, which is no surprise. Despite having had two years to figure out how they were going to implement their deal with the NDP, the Liberals put together the legislation at the last minute. It is window dressing, designed not to define pharmacare, but to keep the government in office for a few more months to deny Canadians what they want most, which is an end to Liberal overspending and incompetence. The proposed bill is a promise, and Canadians know what happens when Liberals make promises. They have made promises in the past nine years. The reality is that, when the Liberals make a promise, things always seem to get worse. They promised affordable housing, and housing costs have doubled under their watch. They promised that the carbon tax would not cost us anything, and we find now that 60% of families are paying more than they collect. The Liberals promised that taxes would go down, and taxes have gone up. They promised safe streets, and then delivered crime, chaos, drugs and disorder. It is no wonder Canadians are afraid things will get worse when the Liberals promise pharmacare. If the government were serious about helping Canadians, it would have gone about things differently. It would have consulted with the insurance industry, found out what the private insurance sector was offering and what the non-profit sector was providing, examined existing provincial coverage, and discovered if there were gaps that needed to be addressed. Instead, the Liberals decided to rush blindly ahead. Canadians know the government is not worth the cost. That has been proven time and time again over the past nine years. Is this pharmacare program worth the cost? An honest answer is that nobody knows because the minister cannot tell us how much it will cost. Any numbers he tosses around are more wishful thinking than reality. Canadians are struggling and looking to the federal government for help. Inflation eats away at their paycheques. Every trip to the grocery store, it seems the prices are going up. Liberals' catch-and-release bail policies are turning violent offenders loose to commit yet more crimes. Despite an ever-increasing carbon tax, the government has no plan to balance its books. The Liberals apparently have no desire to fix the problems created by their wasteful spending. They believe that water runs downhill but never reaches the bottom. They know they will not be in government when the bill for this mismanagement comes due. Food Banks Canada's 2024 poverty report card shows that almost 50% of Canadians feel financially worse off compared to last year, while 25% of Canadians are experiencing food insecurity. The cost of living has become so high that food banks have seen a 50% increase in visits since 2021. As a direct consequence of the government's inflationary spending and taxes, millions of Canadians are struggling to keep their heads above water, yet the Liberals ask us to take on faith that they know how to set up and run a pharmacare program without turning it into a disaster. This is the government that spent more than $50 million on an app that was supposed to cost $80,000, and it cannot tell us how or when that cost overrun happened, or who is responsible. Why should Canadians trust it to run anything? The good news is that this is not a serious piece of legislation. As I said, the Liberals have no idea what they are doing and no real intention to institute a pharmacare program. Bill C-64 is a public relations exercise with which they hope to fool the NDP and Canadians into thinking they are doing something to help people. Given the Liberals track record, I doubt many Canadians will be fooled.

1270 words