SoVote

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

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

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

May/30/24 8:58:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member opposite a lot. I listened to his speech quite diligently, and I am a bit perplexed because, on one hand, he spoke about and advocated for private health care insurance. He talked about how Canadians should just get private insurance for medicine if they do not have any, but then he went on to talk about affordability and the high use of food banks. I hope the member can explain to all of us how he wants to ensure affordable fees against a pharmacare system that is going to save hundreds of dollars for Canadians who do not have private health care insurance so that they can afford to buy good, nutritious food for themselves. I would love to hear that explanation.

128 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

May/30/24 8:59:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member, who I do respect a lot, I did not suggest what he just said. What I was saying is, if there is a gap in the system, the gaps can be filled in many different ways, and we need to solve the problem rather than giving a big promise that we know is not going to be delivered upon. That is the fundamental issue. There is no way I can speak in the House and not mention the difficulties Canadians are going through these days. There are the increased use of food banks, higher mortgage payments, high taxes and all the inflation issues Canadians have to deal with. It is a stop at the perfect time and position to be able to address that and remind ourselves about the disaster the Liberal government and the Liberal-NDP coalition have put Canadians through.

150 words

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

May/30/24 9:00:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives, in a bizarre way, seem obsessed with the size of the bill. It is just a few pages, they say. There is another bill that Canadians hold dear, and it is called the Canada Health Act. It is just a few pages, but it puts in place our universal health care that, in poll after poll, 80% of Canadians see as our most cherished institution. The dental care plan the NDP pushed out, which Conservatives refused to support and in fact tried to block at every turn, has now helped hundreds of seniors in the member's riding. Now we have pharmacare, which would help about 18,000 people in this riding with diabetes and 25,000 who are looking for contraception. The reality is that the next election will be a health care election. Conservatives are very badly placed because all they have done is obstruct and block rather than offering anything at all. Why is my colleague blocking legislation that would help 18,000 of his constituents who have diabetes, and who are sometimes paying up to $1,000 a month, and 25,000 people who are looking for support for contraception?

197 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

May/30/24 9:01:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with the thinking mode the NDP member is in this evening, there is no way we can have a reasonable conversation. As well, his suggestion about the 18,000 people in my riding is as if I do not know my riding or the people who live in Edmonton Manning. The member chose to be fooled by the Liberals, but we are not fooled, and Canadians will not be.

71 words

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

May/30/24 9:02:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe how easy it is to fool the NDP. We heard the NDP member stand up to talk about universal pharmacare. We have this bill in front of us, and it is covering two important things, which are contraception and medication for diabetes, but it is being promoted as universal pharmacare. What does my colleague from Edmonton think Canadians are going to think about this? Again, this is another promise that is not being fulfilled, but the way it is being presented is really deceptive. What does he think Canadians are going to think about that?

100 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

May/30/24 9:03:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the NDP is gathering, as a price for this, a one-week extension of the election so its leader can collect his full pension. That is what they are getting in return, and it does not matter what Canadians get, as long as the NDP leader—

50 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/24 9:03:39 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

15 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/24 9:03:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely misleading the House. He forgets, of course, the member for Burnaby South was not elected in the last—

25 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/30/24 9:03:53 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. We should not be saying that members are intentionally misleading the House. We are going to move on to the next speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East.

37 words

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

May/30/24 9:04:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak to what our government is doing, and plans to do, to help millions of Canadians who are struggling to pay for their prescription drugs. Statistics Canada has indicated that one in five Canadians reported not having insurance to cover the cost of prescription medications in the previous 12 months. We have heard, time and time again, that Canadians who do not have drug insurance coverage struggle to afford medications and are left to make extremely difficult decisions to choose between paying for these medications or other basic necessities of life, such as food and housing. No Canadian should have to make this type of a decision. This is why we introduced Bill C-64, the pharmacare bill, and continue to work with all parliamentarians and colleagues to ensure its speedy adoption. This bill is needed for so many reasons. It proposes the foundational principles for the first phase of national pharmacare in Canada. These principles of access, affordability and appropriate use and universality have guided, and will continue to guide, our government's efforts in moving towards national, universal pharmacare. We have seen these principles reflected in the work that is already under way, including launching the national strategy for drugs for rare diseases and improving affordable access to prescription drugs, which is the initiative with Prince Edward Island. I would like to take a moment to highlight the impact that both of these initiatives would have on national pharmacare. In March last year, the Government of Canada launched the first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases with an investment of up to $1.5 billion over three years. As part of the overall $1.5 billion investment, the federal government will make available up to $1.4 billion over three years to provinces and territories through bilateral agreements. This funding would help provinces and territories improve access to new and emerging drugs for Canadians with rare diseases, as well as support enhanced access to existing drugs, early diagnosis and screening for rare diseases. This would help ensure patients with rare diseases, including children, would have access to treatments as early as possible for a better quality of life. With respect to Prince Edward Island, the Government of Canada established an agreement with P.E.I., in August 2021, to improve the affordable access to prescription drugs and inform the advancement of national universal pharmacare. The $35-million investment has allowed for P.E.I. to add new drugs to its provincial formulary and lower out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under existing public plans for island residents. As of March of this year, P.E.I. has expanded access to over 100 new medications to treat a variety of conditions, including heart disease, pulmonary artery hypertension, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis and cancer. In addition, effective June 1, 2023, P.E.I. reduced copays to $5 for almost 60% of medications regularly used by island residents. I am pleased to share that, through this initiative, within the first nine months alone, P.E.I. residents have saved over $2.8 million in out-of-pocket costs on more than 300,000 prescriptions. These two initiatives highlight how the principles of access, affordability, appropriate use and universality are reflected in our government's work, but they also underscore the importance of working with provinces and territories. Provinces and territories are, and will continue to be, a key partner in ensuring that Canadians get the health care they need. Our government will continue to work with provinces and territories to help ensure that this goal is met. Finally, I would like to highlight another key component of Bill C-64, and that is the Government of Canada's intent to work with provinces and territories to provide universal, single-payer coverage for a number of contraceptives, as well as diabetes medications and supports. Similar to other initiatives that we have put in place, our work to provide contraception and diabetes medications would be guided by the principles I mentioned earlier and will involve working closely with our provincial and territorial partners. The importance of this provision within the bill cannot be understated. We have likely heard over the past few weeks, since the introduction of Bill C-64, Canadians sharing their stories of how this bill would help them, how they are currently suffering from diabetes and do not have the insurance coverage, so they have to pay for their insulin, syringes and test strips out of pocket. Similarly, we are hearing stories of young women who do not have the drug coverage needed to pay for contraception or are limited in the choice available to them because more effective contraception is financially out of reach. We have been receiving, and I certainly have received, numerous letters from Canadians across the country expressing their full support for Bill C-64 and asking the same question of when these drugs would be available to them. There is definitely a need for both of these sets of essential drugs, and I applaud the work of my parliamentary colleagues in getting the bill one step closer to a reality for Canadians. Bill C-64 would allow for nine million Canadians of reproductive age to have better access to contraception and reproductive autonomy. This will help reduce the risk of unintended pregnancies and improve an individual's ability to plan for the future. As I mentioned, cost is the single most important barrier to access to these medications. Bill C-64 would ensure that Canadians will have access to a comprehensive suite of contraceptive drugs and the devices that they need. Similarly, we know that there is no cure for diabetes, but it can be treated with safe and effective medications. Due to cost, 25% of Canadians with diabetes have reported not following their treatment plan. Improving access to diabetes medication, as outlined in Bill C-64, will help improve the health of almost four million Canadians living with diabetes and reduce the risk of serious life-changing health complications, which can include amputations or blindness. That is what Bill C-64 would do. It would give Canadians access to medications to maintain their health and give them a choice to determine which medication is best for them. In addition, these efforts will help avoid additional costs to the health care system. In closing, our government will continue to work toward a national pharmacare plan that focuses on the principles of accessibility, affordability, appropriate use and universality. We will do so in partnership with provinces and territories, and we will do so knowing that Canadians need this immediately to help them access the drugs they need to live a healthy life.

1128 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

May/30/24 9:12:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for constituents at home and Canadians wondering whether any rare disease drugs will be covered by anything, as the member mentioned rare diseases, not a single medication will be covered. In fact, the government's own 2019 budget announcement of $1.5 billion for rare diseases has not covered a single medication for any patient in Canada. I would ask the member the same question I asked the parliamentary secretary. How many medications has the 2019 budget announcement covered? It has been five years. How many Canadians with a rare disease obtained their medication that was covered by the government's announcement of the $1.5 billion for rare disease patients?

113 words

Ms. Joanne Thompson

May/30/24 9:12:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I guess my colleague did not hear the earlier part of my speech when I spoke about the project in P.E.I., which certainly did take into account a very successful pilot on the impact of government coverage for rare diseases. It is really important to understand that with dental care and child care, the government has demonstrated time and time again the ability to work with provinces and territories to allow programs to roll out from the federal government into the province and territory that are able to meet the specific needs of that province. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the reality of our health care system, while there are similarities, is different from what we see in Ontario or on the west coast. We need to be really careful to understand that what we are introducing in this bill is a starting point. It is two significant parts of pharmaceutical needs for Canadians. We know it is very much an upstream process and, in very short order, which we hear all the time from key witnesses, we will see the benefits to our health care system.

190 words

Newfoundland

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

May/30/24 9:14:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of admiration for the member for St. John's East. I always listen quite attentively when she is speaking because she brings a wealth of knowledge and experience as a registered nurse, and now in her role as the chair of the national seniors caucus. I know she spends a lot of time talking to seniors. I would like to know what she is hearing from seniors across our country around the Canadian dental care plan, as it has helped over 120,000 seniors in just three weeks. What is she hearing from seniors in terms of pharmacare, like access to diabetes medications at no cost?

112 words

Ms. Joanne Thompson

May/30/24 9:15:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It highlights some very important aspects of this bill and why I am so pleased to speak about it this evening. As chair of the national seniors caucus, I meet with seniors across the country from coast to coast to coast, and they talk about the need for pharmacare. I think what we are missing in many of our conversations today is how difficult it is for many people in the country to manage the cost of daily living, housing and medication. They pick and choose what medications they take based on affordability. It impacts their health outcomes. It is clearly demonstrated that they enter the health care system in points of crisis. It costs our government and our systems disproportionate amounts of money. Preventative care is essential for us to be able to manage our health care system.

148 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/30/24 9:16:20 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if the member can share how much of this bill would go toward supporting care for indigenous peoples. If there is not enough support, how does this bill need to change? We all know that the health conditions for indigenous peoples are some of the worst compared to other Canadians. What do we need to do to make sure that indigenous peoples are getting the pharmacare that they need too?

73 words

Ms. Joanne Thompson

May/30/24 9:17:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I worked for many years in a community outreach centre where we saw a disproportionate number of indigenous people who were outside of the supports they needed. Health care and pharmaceuticals for chronic disease management were very much part of that. I think the agreements between the provinces and the territories, which are clearly laid out in this bill, are going to be important to ensure that every Canadian has access to diabetes medications and contraceptives.

78 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/30/24 9:17:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate Bill C-64 at third reading. It will come as no surprise to anyone when I say that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. I am the last person from the Bloc Québécois who will be rising today to speak to this bill on pharmacare. We will soon be voting on it and we will see whether it passes. What we have been saying repeatedly in the House is simple. What the Bloc Québécois wants is for the federal government to stop interfering in provincial jurisdictions. We want the money to be transferred to Quebec with no strings attached and we want full financial compensation. We want health transfers. That is what we want, and that is what we will continue to hammer home. I feel like I have to keep repeating myself in the House and that is not right. All the Bloc Québécois wants is to defend Quebeckers' rights and to simply get the money we send to the federal level back so that we can improve the pharmacare program that we already have in Quebec. When this bill was being studied in committee, the Bloc Québécois proposed an important amendment. It read as follows: (4) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a province or territory may elect not to participate in national universal pharmacare, in which case that province or territory remains unconditionally entitled to receive payments in order to maintain the accessibility and affordability of the prescription drugs and related products already covered by its public pharmacare. I do not think this amendment was unreasonable. Its purpose was simply to uphold respect for jurisdictions. The committee chair rejected the amendment on the grounds that it was out of order. The reason will come as a surprise to many. The chair ruled that our amendment was out of order because, in his opinion, it would have required royal recommendation, which we obviously challenged. In committee, however, we can challenge a decision, but unfortunately, we cannot debate it. The committee therefore voted to uphold the chair's ruling. I was rather shocked that the committee ruled our amendment inadmissible. The purpose of the amendment was simply to ensure that jurisdictions are respected and that Quebec be given the money that has already been budgeted and set out in the bill. Quebec is simply asking that its share be set aside and that the money be transferred to Quebec so that it can improve the system that already exists in Quebec. It is unbelievable that that was rejected. It makes no sense. I think the opposite is what should require a royal recommendation. Anything that goes against the Canadian Constitution should require a royal recommendation. That is not the case here. Unfortunately, this bill goes against the very foundations of the Canadian Constitution. Let me explain. It is rather ironic that it still takes a member of the separatist party to remind the House how the Canadian Constitution works, when the government never misses an opportunity to point out that the Constitution is untouchable and that all the issues related to it are not important to Canadians and Quebeckers or that Quebeckers do not care about jurisdictions. However, as surely as I stand in the House today, based on the polls we are seeing, I can say that Quebeckers want jurisdictions to be respected. Whenever Quebeckers are asked who they would prefer to manage services like education or health care, the vast majority of the time, the answer is the same: Quebec. It is all the more ironic given that the Constitution I am talking about is the one that was imposed in secret by the father of the current Prime Minister, during the night of the long knives in 1982. That was a little refresher. Since then, the Liberal Party's tendency has grown stronger. Increasingly, English-speaking Canada wants Ottawa to be its real government, the one that manages the bulk of public services. Conversely, Quebec has made a different choice. Quebec wants to manage its own jurisdictions, its own health care system, its own education system, its own day cares and so on. That is the choice that Quebeckers are making and that is the clear choice that the Quebec National Assembly made when its members unanimously reiterated that jurisdictions must be respected. Of course, pharmacare has a noble objective, that of giving every individual, every person who needs medical services or prescription drugs the ability to get those drugs for little or no cost. It is so noble that Quebec has already done it. Quebec already has its own pharmacare program. Taking care of people affected by the difficult economic conditions we are experiencing is very noble. The problem is that these measures are ill-suited to the different realities of Quebec and Canada's provinces. Even with all the good faith in the world, this was inevitable. Health and housing are not federal matters. The House of Commons has no business getting involved in those areas. That is because Quebeckers believe that their real government is in Quebec City. As long as that is the case, the concept of fiscal imbalance will exist. My colleague from Mirabel is very familiar with the concept of fiscal imbalance. We will not stop talking about it in the House. By fiscal imbalance, I mean the fact that the provinces have insufficient financial resources in relation to their own powers, while the federal government normally has surpluses. It is hard to understand why it has these deficits given all the money it collects. Yes, it has services it is supposed to deliver, but they are not exactly high-quality services. The responsibilities that fall under federal or provincial jurisdictions must be respected. More simply, as Bernard Landry used to say, “the needs are in the provinces but the means are in Ottawa”. Even if the federal government tries hard to deny its existence, the fiscal imbalance is a major problem that has been recognized for many years. As the population ages, the cost of Quebec's social programs is rising rapidly. The cost of pharmacare is obviously rising rapidly. It is up to the Quebec government, and the Quebec government alone, to determine where the funds for these programs should go and how to improve the pharmacare program that already exists. Since Quebec is chronically underfunded, we might wonder, as we often do, if a Quebecker is worth less than a Canadian. The Government of Quebec is shouting itself hoarse asking for health transfers. What does the federal government have to say in response? It responds with even more intrusions into Quebec's jurisdiction. That is what we are seeing again today with pharmacare. Unfortunately, the reason Quebeckers prefer to have pharmacare and every area of Quebec's jurisdiction run by Quebec City, is that everything the federal government touches results in failure. Federal equals failure. I have talked about ArriveCAN several times in the House. I have a question: How much does Tylenol cost when it is 7,500% higher than its cost, like the ArriveCAN app was? It is going to be expensive. That is what is happening with pharmacare. The pharmacare that the federal government is going to create is going to cost us a lot more because the only thing the federal government does is mismanage its programs, run them completely inefficiently, like it did with ArriveCAN. Quebec's system may be imperfect, but it does not need interference or duplication of costs. It needs more money. That money is in the hands of the federal government. It is a mixed system, a system that works well between a “forgiver” and company contributions and individual payroll contributions. It is not perfect, but it works. It is based on an existing model in France. The federal government is modelling its plan after it. However, instead of simply saying that Quebec has the expertise and skills to run its own pharmacare, the federal government wants to duplicate it and make it less efficient. It is crazy and that is why the Bloc Québécois is against this type of bill and the pharmacare program proposed by the federal government. I keep hearing my NDP colleagues remind us that the major unions, including the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, have come out in favour of moving forward with pharmacare. Of course, they had their reasons, as I will explain today. The reason is noble, the objective is noble. Improving medical coverage and offering pharmacare to people with diabetes or people who use contraception is noble, but it is not a federal jurisdiction. It is up to Quebec to decide how to do that. It would cost Quebec less to improve its own pharmacare program than to have it managed by the federal government. A ton of evidence shows that the federal government has no idea how to manage its own programs. Does anyone need to be reminded about passports or ArriveCAN? No, I will not go there. It is too late, and if the truth be told, I am a little too tired for that. In conclusion, once we recognize, first of all, the fiscal imbalance problem, which will continue for as long as Canada is governed by the current Canadian Constitution, and secondly, the need to take steps to help our fellow citizens, the House will have to ask itself some hard questions. When the federal system was set up, important needs came under federal jurisdiction, like participating in imperialist wars. Today, the real needs are in the provinces. Let us be honest. Instead of voting on pharmacare tonight, why not vote to reopen the Canadian Constitution and finally put an end to this farce of separate jurisdictions? Let us ask Quebeckers to vote again, put an end to jurisdictions, and declare Quebec's independence.

1684 words