SoVote

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

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

Mr. Marcus Powlowski

May/30/24 10:32:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a step toward universal health care. Yes, it does not bring us to that point yet, but it is a step. With respect to the committee that is going to be involved in this, I thought the member was going to ask me about the fact that those two people were not consulted in the process. That is too bad. However, I agree with the member that how we do this is really important. If we have an efficient system and an efficient bureaucracy, this can save Canadians money. If we create a gigantic bureaucracy that costs a whole ton of money, more than the private system, then it will not end up benefiting Canadians. It is really crucial who we put on that committee and the steps we take in subsequent days, weeks and years.

140 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/30/24 10:33:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member very closely on a number of files, and I know him to be a very honourable member of this place. He referenced the Hoskins report many times, and of course this is the report that was commissioned by the government to look at this. It found that $5 billion of savings would be available if we were to put in a national pharmacare program. Like the member, I recognize that this is not a full pharmacare program. This is a framework on which we could build a pharmacare program. Could the member comment on the medications or drugs that he thinks should be next in the pharmacare program now that we have dedicated this particular step to diabetes medication and devices and to contraceptives?

132 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski

May/30/24 10:34:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very pertinent. I have some background in this. Once upon a time, years ago, I worked in a tiny country in the South Pacific, Vanuatu, on its essential drug list, which was its first essential drug list. The WHO is trying to do this with a lot of countries. Similarly in Canada, this act calls for the creation of an essential drug list. On that essential drug list, we would have the input of physicians and other specialists from across Canada to determine what the priority drugs are that a government finance system ought to supply its citizenry. That is an important question, and it is one of the next steps. I, like her, realize that this does not bring us to a national pharmacare system, but it is an important step on the way to that.

144 words

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

May/30/24 10:35:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being recognized again. It is a great honour for me to work with the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River on the HESA committee. Given his medical and legal background, I find him quite beneficial to me for my understanding of a lot of health care issues. One of the things we heard a lot about at committee is the impact of this framework legislation on private health insurance. There was a lot of fearmongering on the Conservatives' part that somehow it would disappear. Could the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River comment and give us his views on what impact this bill would have on private health insurance?

117 words

Insurance

Mr. Marcus Powlowski

May/30/24 10:35:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the very perceptive question by the member from Ottawa. This is a very important point. We heard from a lot of people, and there was a lot of concern about having a basic system. What if we needed more expensive medications for certain things? Would we be getting rid of private drug plans? That is not necessarily the case. There will be a public plan, but I think there would still be the option, if people wanted, to pay additional money for a private plan that would cover all the things that are not currently insured, as there is for other kinds of health care at the moment.

112 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 10:36:25 p.m.
Watch

Before I go to the member for Nunavut, who will be joining us virtually, I want to let members know that I have tried to provide members with about 40 seconds to ask and answer questions so that we can do the full rotation. It is really important that we all try to keep to that so that everybody can participate. I am also providing some flexibility, because questions are interesting and I want to hear as complete an answer as possible, as I am certain a person who asks a question would like that. The hon. member for Nunavut.

100 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/30/24 10:36:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Uqaqtittiji, before I begin my speech, I will take this opportunity to congratulate Sharon DeSousa, who just became the first racialized national president at the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I first met her when the Iqaluit Housing Authority Inuit workers had their 136 days of striking to advance the rights of workers, not just for Iqalummiut, but also abroad. I am excited about Sharon's election. I will get to my speech. As the member of Parliament for Nunavut, Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, put me in a bit of a personal dilemma. I wondered if I should support a bill that would do too little for the majority of my constituents. Through my speech this evening, I will share how I came to support the importance of this bill. As an Inuk from Nunavut, I continue to see the impacts of what happens when the federal government purposefully underinvests in indigenous peoples. The lack of investing in housing means that people live in overcrowded housing conditions. Many live in mouldy homes. These conditions create poorer health outcomes and deep-rooted social issues, such as increased violence, substance abuse and the continuation of intergenerational trauma being passed on to our children and our grandchildren. Having lived through these hurdles, I am always analyzing bills and debates with sensitivity to how all too common my experience is for indigenous peoples in Canada. I know all too well what it means to suffer. I hope when Canadians hear me, that they do their part to act on reconciliation with indigenous peoples. When I became the member of Parliament for Nunavut, I learned to act on solidarity. Before I was an MP, it was just a word. I wholeheartedly thank my colleague and friend, the member of Parliament for Hamilton Centre. This is what I am doing in supporting this bill. I am compelled to act knowing this bill, when it is passed, will help so many Canadians. It will help women and gender-diverse people access contraceptives. It will help many Canadians pay for diabetes medication. On another note, I must express my view regarding the Bloc's position on this bill. Its main concern seems to be that of jurisdiction and telling the government to stay out of its jurisdiction. I do hope its members reconsider their position because, regardless of jurisdiction, this bill can help more Canadians. This bill sets a foundation to create a universal single-payer system across Canada. This reminds me of Jordan's principle. I take this opportunity to honour the family of Jordan River Anderson, who this program is importantly named after. Jordan died a preventable death. He died while different jurisdictions were fighting over not having jurisdiction to cover his expenses and care. Because of Jordan's principle, care for first nations and Inuit has improved. While the Liberal government's responses take too long and it allows funding to lapse, Jordan's principle has made significant impacts for Inuit and first nations. Bill C-64 is an opportunity to model Jordan's principle so women and gender-diverse people have immediate access to contraceptives and people with diabetes can stop stressing about their finances knowing they can rely on this program for diabetes medication. I must share my criticism of the bill. I am dismayed to see that, once again, when it comes to indigenous peoples, we are forced to wait. While I appreciate that Bill C-64 would require the Minister of Health to initiate discussions based on essential medicines lists with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples, this work must start immediately. While first nations and Inuit have the non-insured health benefits program to have services such as dental care, eye care and mental health services paid for, much of the investments in Nunavut go toward medical travel because of the lack of health care in Nunavut. Children are flown thousands of kilometres to access basic care and dental care. This program funds millions of dollars to the airline industry. Ensuring pharmacare improves on the NIHB program will be very important in making sure that Nunavummiut, northerners and indigenous peoples see better care closer to home. The pharmacare bill must avoid the pitfalls that we have seen in NIHB. I remember, for example, my colleague and friend, the MP for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, bringing to me a witness when the indigenous and northern affairs committee studied the non-insured health benefits program. She brought forward a pharmacist, Rudy Malak, who struggled to get paid for providing eligible people the drugs covered under the non-insured health benefits program. The proposed act must ensure that pharmacists would be paid immediately without worrying about closing their doors because the federal government may take too long to pay its bills. I conclude by reminding everyone that, when it comes to helping Canadians, we must do so with a foundation of removing barriers for people. As much as I am conflicted about the bill, I must practise what the MP for Hamilton Centre taught me about acting in solidarity, knowing that the passage of the bill will help so many Canadians.

861 words

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

May/30/24 10:44:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's general attitude in recognizing the importance of the legislation to the degree in which it would assist millions of Canadians in all regions of the country. I am wondering if she could expand on why it is so important that Liberals, New Democrats, Bloc members and Conservatives should be behind this bill to help so many of our constituents.

66 words

Importance

Ms. Lori Idlout

May/30/24 10:44:53 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, as I said earlier, having empathy is really important, but acting on that empathy is even more important. When I hear about so many Canadians possibly having amputations because they cannot afford diabetes medication, I feel we all have to do our part to make sure that we act when we can, and it is our duty as parliamentarians to make sure that all Canadians get the drugs and the care that they need, so we can keep making sure that Canada is a better place to live in.

90 words

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

May/30/24 10:45:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when we are in this place, we have to wrestle with really hard pieces of legislation that benefit some but not all, and I am afraid that in this place, historically, up until today, indigenous people are left out of so much decision-making, and their needs are extensively not met, again and again. I am just wondering if the member could talk about what she sees as being needed right now to start including indigenous people in a more meaningful way so that we can start to repair the harm that has been done, specifically in this place.

101 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

May/30/24 10:46:31 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, that is such an important question because one of the answers is what indigenous peoples have been saying all along, and we hear it in some responses, such as co-development, but we have to really make sure that, when it comes everything from laws to program development policies to decisions regarding lands and the health and education of indigenous peoples, we have to be at the table helping to make those decisions, not just because of a legal duty to consult, but demanding it because of reconciliation. We have to make sure that we have more indigenous peoples become parliamentarians, and we have to make sure that there is more participation that does not prevent us from helping to make decisions on these matters.

126 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/30/24 10:47:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about Jordan's principle, and I would really love for her to expand on the importance of that within her own community and on the dangers that we see with the government stepping back from the commitment to ensure that the needs of first nations, Inuit and Métis are placed in priority over money and squabbling between jurisdictions.

66 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

May/30/24 10:48:12 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, Jordan's principle is such an important story to always remember because the implementation of it allows payments to be made up front and for the jurisdictions to discuss who ends up paying for it in the end. We have an opportunity with the pharmacare act for women and gender-diverse people to get their contraceptives immediately, without having to worry about whether it is going to be the provinces or the federal government who pays for it, as well as for people to get their diabetes medication. I know this kind of system can work because we see it in Jordan's principle, especially when we have discovered, through that program, the atrocities indigenous children are forced to experience and that treatment will happen immediately. We need that same kind of foundation through this pharmacare program.

138 words