SoVote

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

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

May/30/24 9:49:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised this afternoon by the hon. member for London—Fanshawe. Firstly, I want to thank our colleague, the hon. member for West Nova, for rising in the House and providing a clear first-hand account of his association with the social media post in question. Unlike the recent controversy over the Speaker's summer rally, where the Liberal response was never directly put before the House, and instead, we had the New Democratic House leader quoting a Liberal tweet addressed to the member for Hull—Aylmer, this is a refreshing change. For her part, the NDP deputy House leader described the Facebook post as a “Conservative Party advertisement.” It was simply none of those things. It was, in fact, simply a free Facebook post on a riding association Facebook page. As the hon. member for West Nova just shared with the House, he neither saw nor approved the photograph or wording of this social media post for a free meet-and-greet function. Unlike the Speaker's famous Liberal Convention video, he did not pose in his gown for a photo specially taken for this Facebook post. No House of Commons resources were used for this riding association invitation. This is a material and very clear distinction. In glancing at the photo used, it simply appears to be a standard photo one could expect to see on the House of Commons website. It seems like the post was probably the result of a volunteer quickly assembling a short posting who may have simply grabbed a flattering, publicly available photo. In fact, when one does a photo search on Google for the member for West Nova, the photograph in question is among the first half-dozen results. However one cuts it, it is a far cry from the circumstances we saw with the Speaker 's summer rally invitation published on the red, slick professional Liberal Party of Canada website, which included the following words, “Team [Prime Minister] events are posted by local volunteer teams”. Just to be clear between the two events in question, first, one event concerned an event organized by the Speaker's own riding association and promoted on a national political party's glossy website. It also featured nakedly partisan language trashing a political party and its leader. The other was a free ordinary Facebook post by a riding association on its own Facebook account and, to be certain, it was not the West Nova Conservative association's. It made zero reference to any other political party and was actually free of any partisanship in its wording. As the member for West Nova shared, he asked the riding association in question to remove the post, and I have been informed that it was removed promptly this afternoon. Of course, if the NDP members think this is bad, I would ask them to get their own affairs in order. On the New Democratic Party's slick orange website, one can find, at www.ndp.ca/team, a picture of the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, and if one clicks on it, one will see her title of “Assistant Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole in the House of Commons” along with not one but two “donation” buttons and another link to volunteer for the party. The New Democratic Party is literally fundraising on the fact that one of its members is a chair occupant. However, this is not new behaviour. From the day of her first appointment to the roster of chair occupants on December 8, 2015, the NDP published a press release celebrating her appointment, titled “NDP MP...named Deputy Speaker”. In it, the party gushes, “People in Northern Ontario will be seeing more of [the] NDP MP [for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing] during televised parliamentary debates now that she has been named Assistant Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole in the 42nd Parliament.” Nonetheless, the NDP deputy House leader, in her zeal for a gotcha moment, neglected to cite or perhaps even assess or review several critical procedural authorities. First, this question of privilege concerned a Facebook post published on October 31, 2023. That was seven months ago. The hon. member may claim she only just became aware of it, but it was in full, plain sight of the public for seven whole months. This fact alone betrays the NDP's intention in raising this specious argument. Regardless, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, explains, at page 145: The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. The member for London—Fanshawe missed this requirement by a long shot. Second, the hon. member for West Nova is not the Speaker. He is the Deputy Speaker. As Bosc and Gagnon comment, at pages 361 and 362: While the Standing Orders provide for the Speaker’s impartiality and independence by prohibiting participation in any debate before the House, there is no such clear statement as to whether the Deputy Speaker and other Presiding Officers should take part in debate. Until the 1930s, it was not unusual for Deputy Speakers to participate actively in debate and there has been controversy from time to time over the extent to which the Chair Occupants, other than the Speaker, should remain aloof from partisan politics. In 1931, when a question arose as to the propriety of the Deputy Speaker speaking in debate, it was generally felt that the actions of the Deputy Speaker must be governed by “good taste and judgement”. Since then, and in the absence of any rule or guideline governing the political activities of Presiding Officers of the House or limiting their participation in debate or voting, the degree of participation has been an individual decision. In 1993, Deputy Speaker Champagne agreed to act as co-chair of her party’s leadership convention. A question of privilege was raised in the House by a Member who argued that this decision affected the appearance of impartiality attached to the office of Deputy Speaker and that she was therefore guilty of a contempt of the House. Speaker Fraser ruled that, given the existing practice and the absence of clear direction from the House, Deputy Speakers have used varying degrees of discretion in terms of their party involvement. He clarified that they remain members of their political parties, and unlike the Speaker, may attend caucus meetings, participate in debate and vote. The Speaker ruled that the Deputy Speaker is not “cloaked with the same exigencies that are expected of the Speaker” and that the matter did not constitute a prima facie case of privilege. To expand on Speaker Fraser's ruling, found on page 16685 of the Debates for March 9, 1993, I would ask him to add that he also made the following pointed comment: “I am deliberately careful in not extending such a responsibility [for impartiality] by way of ex cathedra comments in this decision.” Indeed, this decision was cited in the ruling we received just three days ago, on Monday, at page 23828 of the Debates, with the Chair saying, “While Speaker Fraser did not find a prima facie question of privilege, he did state that the level of impartiality expected of the Speaker should be higher than that of other chair occupants.” Clearly, it would seem that the New Democratic Party's brain trust, which is loyally devoted to defending its coalition government with the Liberals at all costs, missed these important points. Indeed, that is disappointing and troubling. As Deputy Speaker Armand LaVergne told the House on June 19, 1931, at page 2840 of the Debates, “A deputy speaker is not supposed to be impartial when he is not in the chair.” It certainly seems that the New Democratic Party applies that particular standard when it comes to the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, given the aggressive views of her office on fundraising and volunteer recruitment. In the present case, we had a publicly available photo that was innocently used in a clear and obvious volunteer-run social media page. It was in support of an event for which long-standing authority and precedence make clear that the hon. member for West Nova was at complete liberty to attend. The NDP complaint should be dismissed for what it is: a petty, short-sighted partisan attack.

1478 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 10:02:58 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

15 words

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

May/30/24 10:03:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will congratulate the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. I have been in this house for 20 years and that is surely the dumbest question of privilege I have ever seen raised in the House of Commons, so I— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

51 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 10:03:44 p.m.
Watch

I am going to ask the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who is an experienced member, to withdraw that comment.

22 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/24 10:04:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to the member, but I withdraw the comment about his question of privilege. I am not even going to dignify that with a response. I will come back to the member of Parliament for West Nova. What we have here is a sense that the Conservatives are applying a different set of criteria than they were in the other case I had raised in the House. Members will recall that my immediate concern was whether the Liberal Party had actually been provided the authorization and consent for the posting of that partisan post, and it had not. We immediately demanded that the Liberal Party of Canada apologize for doing something that I felt was disrespectful to you, Mr. Speaker, and disrespectful to Parliament. The Liberal Party posted without your authorization and consent. We now have the exact same situation. I believe the member for West Nova. He is an honourable man, as you are, Mr. Speaker. He says the post, with him in his Speaker's robes, was posted without his authorization and consent. He is obviously owed an apology by the riding association, and I hope he will share that formal apology. If it was the Conservative Party that posted it, it should be the Conservative Party apologizing. If it was the riding association posting it without Conservative Party approval, then it should be the riding association fully apologizing. It was not only disrespectful to the member for West Nova, but it was also disrespectful to the speakership and to the House of Commons. These cases are exactly the same. It is exactly the same situation. The difference, of course, is how it was proposed on the floor of the House of Commons. This afternoon, the member for London—Fanshawe rose and said there is a picture of the Deputy Speaker in his Speaker's robes for financing and—

318 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 10:06:10 p.m.
Watch

That looks like a prop. I will ask the hon. member just to put that paper down.

17 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/30/24 10:06:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for London—Fanshawe raised the issue in asking if it was approved by the member for West Nova, yes or no? We have a response, and we honour it in the same way that we should all, as members of Parliament, honour your response. The point is that we are talking about the exact same situation. The NDP has treated both situations in the exact same way. I am not going to even dignify what the member for Mégantic—L'Érable said, because it simply does not dignify the House. The comment from the member for West Nova is something that we should take into consideration. I hope that there will be an apology coming shortly from the riding association or from the Conservative Party. In both cases, we should, as parliamentarians, consider the matter closed. Mr. Speaker, through you, I would tell my Conservative colleagues to start acting like adults. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

165 words

Approved

The Speaker

May/30/24 10:07:25 p.m.
Watch

I am going to ask the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets to not take the floor until they are recognized. I thank the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable for his intervention. I also thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his point. The Chair will take this under advisement and come back to the House.

66 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/30/24 10:08:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, after the NDP House leader, let us get this back on track and talk about the pharmacare bill, Bill C-64. I am pretty happy to take to my feet. I did have the opportunity to sit in committee for five hours a couple days ago and listen to some of the witnesses and some of the comments and concerns around the pharmacare bill, Bill C-64. I want to put some of my concerns on the record. I see the former health minister and I am looking forward to hearing him talk about it, if he is going to get to his feet. A year ago, I asked the former health minister how many provincial health ministers at an FPT meeting had asked to bring forward a pharmacare bill. Was it on the top of their priority list? At that time, the minister did not have an answer for me. In committee, a couple of days ago, I had the opportunity to ask the current health minister that exact same question. I do believe that health is a provincial jurisdiction. My question was whether they were able to name any health ministers who proactively came to the federal government to ask for this bill to be brought forward or whether there were other requests. I know, in Saskatchewan, that we have a shortage of nurses. We have a shortage of doctors. There are a lot of issues, and I think many provinces do have concerns around doctor and nurse shortages. I think we are short 30,000 doctors right now in Canada. That is a pretty big deal. I think around seven million Canadians do not have access to a family physician. I think that is something that health ministers probably brought forward at the FPT meetings. I believe that is something that we do need to look at: how we can support our provincial partners and have that conversation. Once again, the current health minister did not answer my question about whether this was a priority at FPT meetings. Tonight, I was able to ask that question again to the member from Winnipeg North. I asked if he could name a health minister who brought this pharmacare bill forward as a priority for the provinces. I have never seen him play hockey but he was pretty good at skating around that question. He went full circle, but he never really came to the crux of my question as to whether a health minister had asked for this. This is not partisan rhetoric. This is a legitimate question around public policy and the priorities of provincial governments. I heard from my colleague from Victoria. She talked about a child who needed diabetes care. I listened to her speech and when I asked her if she could tell me the age of full coverage in Saskatchewan, she could not. That is a very real concern of mine, the fact that they are bringing forward this legislation and that people voting for this bill do not know what the different coverages are out there in different provinces. That is a legitimate problem. We should know where the coverages are across the provinces. In my home province of Saskatchewan, I have been texting with our health minister, I asked him if this was one of the things he brought forward and he said no, that they just came to them and said they were going to do this, take it or leave it. Then they asked for details. The minister said that they never gave them any details because they did not have any yet. It is surprising for a provincial health minister to not have any details on a pharmacare bill. A pamphlet, in my opinion, is not a bill, as it is four pages long. It covers diabetes and contraceptives, but there is little detail given to our provincial partners and that is a legitimate concern that we have to discuss. They rammed this through. They bring in time allocation and then they just expect everything to be okay. We all know that this is just what the NDP asked for to keep the government in power for a little bit more time. This is part of the supply and confidence deal. They continue to tell falsehoods to Canadians. It is not coverage; two things are being covered. For NDP members to bring up Tommy Douglas in the House is laughable. He would be embarrassed by the NDP and the situation it is in right now. He would probably be a Conservative right now. He would be completely embarrassed by what the NDP, the rump of the NDP, has become: a bunch of activists. I think it is very funny whenever they bring forward the name of Tommy Douglas, because he probably rolls over in his grave when that happens. Being from Saskatchewan, I also had a time to be in government, with the Saskatchewan Party and former premier Wall, which takes me to another point. The NDP-Liberal government continues to bring in bills and then it says it is going to do consultation. I think that is a little bit backward. I remember being in Saskatchewan, and I was a member of the all-party traffic safety committee. We travelled around Saskatchewan for a couple weeks, in all corners, and took feedback from all of the stakeholders. We consulted. We gathered feedback. Then we made legislation. Is that not a novel idea? Talk to people, ask what is going on, ask what works and what does not work, and then put forward legislation, instead of bringing forward legislation and then asking if it can work. Sometimes, I just find that some of the things the government does are quite backwards. The same thing happened with nuclear consultations. We started nuclear consultations in Saskatchewan in the first term of 2007 and continued to talk to people and consult before we even got to the point of even the discussion of small nuclear reactors. That was how long we actually consulted with the people of Saskatchewan. Can members imagine having that approach here in this House, to continue to talk to people, instead of ramming things through based on political ideology and what people think they need to stay in power? Getting back to my point about diabetes, I have a cousin who plays for Regina Thunder. He was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was two. That is why I am such a champion of diabetes care. His mother and father had to wake him up at night and prick his finger when he was a baby and when he was two or three years old. Then he would get insulin pills. Now he has tracking on his arm. He has a pump that is covered by the province of Saskatchewan. That is progress. That is how to listen to people and get things done. I think that is what we should take forward. The NDP have talked about compassion. Where is their compassion for the 27 million Canadians who have insurance, but who are scared right now that they are going to have less coverage? I know 1.1 million Canadians are under-insured. We can take care of them. Just imagine if one of the health ministers of the NDP-Liberal government went to a provincial-territorial meeting and asked how to get people insured under their provincial programs. What is the need out there? The Liberal government of the day wants to take credit for everything. There did not have to be a national program. Imagine if it had worked with its provincial partners and then supplemented their programs? Maybe the provinces would have needed extra money. I guarantee that it would not have cost $1 billion or $2 billion. This program is going to cost $2 billion. There are several public policy reasons why this bill should not go forward in the form it is in. We should continue to work with our provincial partners. I would love for one of these ministers of health to answer how many provincial health ministers asked for this program to come forward. The same could be said for the dental plan. Today is a pretty special day in my life. On May 30, 1944, my father, Ron Steinley, was born. I am not able to be home with him, but I want to wish him a very happy 80th birthday. He is in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. I am going to try and rip out there, maybe this week or next week, so we can take him out for supper. Happy birthday to my dad and all the best.

1453 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 10:17:27 p.m.
Watch

Not only do I thank the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan for his intervention, but I would like to congratulate him for two things, one, to wish his father a very happy birthday and, second, how his father's birthday has united this House. Great job to Mr. Steinley, Sr. I hope you have an opportunity to see him soon.

61 words

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

May/30/24 10:17:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have to start by saying remembering our humanity in this place is really important. I, too, wish a very happy birthday to the member's father. I think it is a beautiful thing to have these opportunities. We are away from them far too long. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind everybody in this House that, in fact, Tommy Douglas was very clear. His first step was going to be medicare, and the second step of his vision was pharmacare. I stand here as a proud New Democrat, feeling that I am carrying a legacy forward in a profound way. I will always be proud of that. I do not know if the member knows this, but, in my province, the B.C. NDP are making sure that all contraceptives will be covered, knowing that is an important right. When this program is in place, it will actually free up resources so that the province can reallocate funds to a different place. I just hope the member understands that and is looking forward to what his province will receive based on this allocation.

189 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

May/30/24 10:19:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for wishing my father a happy birthday. The New Democrats talk about Tommy Douglas a lot. I actually had the time in the Saskatchewan legislature to read his master's thesis, which was on eugenics. Is that the third step, then? If they are going to talk about Tommy Douglas, they should talk about all the things he thought health care needed. They never talk about that, which is interesting. I believe the provinces really do need to work together with the federal government. The fact it is trying to ram this down the provinces' throat is actually quite funny. I can text the health minister right now, who will say that, because he has no idea what is in this plan, he does not know how the province is going to be prepared for it or how much it is going to spend because it has no idea what it actually entails.

161 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/30/24 10:19:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my question is rather simple. If the member believes in respecting jurisdictions and can talk about the pharmacare that exists in several provinces of Canada, then why did his party vote against the Bloc Québécois' proposed amendment to the budget? That amendment sought to require the government to respect jurisdictions in its budget, including Quebec's jurisdictions. Why did his party vote against that amendment?

71 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

May/30/24 10:20:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-64. I think the provincial government has jurisdiction over health care and the federal government should butt out.

26 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.)

May/30/24 10:20:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate his father on behalf of the Liberal Party. We will share a beer in his honour tonight. The member at least implied in his speech that he took part in ensuring that young diabetics in Saskatchewan have the cost of their medication paid for. Maybe he could speak a little more about that. I would also say is that not what we are trying to do with our bill here? Would it not be a good thing if the health minister did this in Saskatchewan? If he did, great.

96 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

May/30/24 10:21:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in Saskatchewan, in 2011, the Saskatchewan Party made a commitment to campaign on providing coverage for diabetics up to the age 18. Then, in 2016, we campaigned to move that to age 25. That is exactly what we did: we provided coverage for diabetics until the age of 25. The theory behind that was, after the age of 25, a lot of people had their own coverage when they were gainfully employed and had private insurance. There are still other programs to cover people who are less insured. The problem I have with this is that we do not know what the coverage is going to be. Not all diabetics take the same medicine either, so we do not know which medicines would be covered in this program, as it is not going to be all of them, which goes to my point that consultations should be done before bringing in legislation so we know what works and what does not.

163 words

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

May/30/24 10:21:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned two important points that are missing here. One is that it was a top-down approach and there was a lack of consultation. The other is how many provincial ministers actually asked about it. One of the things the member touched on that I thought was really important is that many people in his province have very good coverage already. My question for the member is this: If it becomes a top-down approach, why does he fear the federal government would make it worse for the people who are doing good on their medication?

100 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

May/30/24 10:22:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals always talk about providing coverage for the 1.1 million people, which is important, but they would take away some of the better coverage that 27 million people have. That is fake compassion and the lie of the left.

43 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.)

May/30/24 10:22:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this issue and this bill, finally. As others have already pointed out, Canada is the only country with a universal health care system that does not provide some sort of universal drug coverage. Under the British, Australian, New Zealand, French and Belgian systems, basically to some degree or another, people's medications are paid for by the government and they do not have to pay for them. Having said that, admittedly, in some countries there is copay. This is an important bill. It is the first step in creating a national pharmacare system, and this I truly support. However, I did not always feel this way. As somebody who has long-practised in the health care system, I was a bit worried, because with the health care system as it presently is, we are struggling to pay for it. It occurred to me that what the government ought to be doing in health care is making sure that this sucker stays on the road. Certainly, I had a bit of trepidation with the idea that we were going to add another cost like pharmacare. However, having thought about it and having sat through committee meetings where we talked to experts, I have changed my mind because I think that a national pharmacare system would save the health care system money, not increase costs. The current system, as we have it, which is a patchwork of private and public plans, is really inefficient. Multiple studies and recommendations since the 1960s have all basically said that. In fact, one study from the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2017 concluded that we in Canada pay 50% more for our drugs than people do in 10 other wealthy countries that have national pharmacare programs. In addition, the inefficiency of our pharmaceutical system is demonstrated by the fact that we in Canada pay the second most for drugs of any people in the world. The Americans pay more, but other than that, we pay more for drugs than anyone else. The inefficiency of our system comes from the fact that we provide pharmacare in Canada like the United States does. We, like the United States, have a patchwork system of private and public providers, and the private providers are often set up through employers. At times, these are non-profits, but for the most part they are for-profit companies. Similarly, there are public systems and public plans, and there are multiple public plans. For example, in Ontario, there is the Ontario drug benefit plan for those over 65, there is a Trillium plan for higher-cost medications and there is OHIP+. Basically, we pay for our medications in Canada like Americans pay for all parts of their health care system, but our system for paying for medications, like the U.S. health care system, is really inefficient. Americans pay twice as much for health care as Canadians do. On average, Americans pay $12,000 per person for health care, and in Canada we pay $6,000 for health care per person, and they have worse outcomes than we do. For example, they have a lower life expectancy than we do in Canada. I studied health law and policy both in Boston and at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and learned a bit about the health care system. I was certainly impressed by the inefficiency of the American health care system. They have private hospitals, private health care providers and private insurance companies, and each of these organizations has administrators who basically spend half of their time scheming on how they can decrease costs and increase profits. They have to pay for these administrators. Similarly, they have to pay the CEOs and the higher-up executives, who all bring in the big bucks, for working in those positions. On top of that, and most of all, a lot of money goes to the shareholders of corporations, which are legally obliged to financially benefit shareholders. All this money comes out of the health care system, money that ought to be going toward trying to improve the health care of Americans. Similarly, in Canada, we currently have 1,100 private and public plans according to a Lancet 2024 study, although according to the Hoskins report, we have 100,000 private plans. If instead of having all these plans, we just had one plan, then surely there would be tremendous savings coming from economies of scale. We would not need 1,100 organizations with 1,100 sets of administrators administering their own plans. We would not need hundreds of CEOs siphoning money that would otherwise go to health care, and there would be no profits going to shareholders rather than going to health care. There would be all sorts of savings from economies of scale and increased bargaining power. For example, if someone went to a provider or manufacturer of drugs and bought 10 million pills rather than 10,000 pills, I am sure they would get those pills at a cheaper cost, so there are savings there. Also, shipping costs are lower when buying in bulk, and there are fewer inspections needed. When we add up all these savings, how much do they add up to? Well, according to the 2019 Hoskins report, with national pharmacare by 2027, which is when it would come into effect, total spending on prescription drugs would be $5 billion lower than it would be without national pharmacare. That is money we could use in the health care system for other things. That means more money to afford expensive cancer therapies, more money to address the long waiting times for either surgeries or diagnostic tests and more money to do research and try to find new cures for things like cancer, ALS, etc. However, it is not just about saving money in the system. It is also about helping Canadians who struggle to meet the high costs of medications. According to the Hoskins report, between 5% and 20% of Canadians are either uninsured or under-insured, which amounts to two million to eight million people. Furthermore, one in five households reported that a family member in the past year had not taken a prescribed medicine due to its high costs, another three million Canadians said they were not able to afford one or more of their prescription drugs in the past year and almost one million Canadians borrowed money in order to pay for prescription drugs. For all these reasons, I support this legislation and moving to the next step toward a national pharmacare system. I also welcome that we will be able to provide diabetic medications and contraception to people as one of the next steps in getting to a national pharmacare system.

1133 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

May/30/24 10:31:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River is always thoughtful here and mindful of the shortfalls of things the government puts forward. There are a couple of things, though, to think about. At the health committee, we had two of Canada's experts, Drs. Morgan and Gagnon, and as the member well knows, they had no input into but much criticism about this bill. It related to the fact that it would not create a national, universal, single-payer, first-dollar pharmacare system. I heard them say that and I know the member across heard them say that as well. The other criticism we heard clearly is that the newly formed Canadian drug agency will have absolutely no oversight, especially from the point of view of an Auditor General's audit, with respect to its activities. We know on behalf of Canadians that at the current time, the time from application to approval for a drug in Canada is one of the longest among the OECD countries. I would appreciate my hon. colleague's comments with respect to those two things.

184 words