SoVote

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

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/30/24 11:00:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple, but at the same time I think it is rather complex because I have never gotten a clear answer from the federal government. Why does the government think that it is better placed to understand the needs of Quebeckers than the Government of Quebec, which administers a pharmacare program that has been around for many years?

62 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/30/24 11:01:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a national pharmacare program. We know that there are a number of provinces that offer different levels of pharmacare support right now, but what we are trying to do is provide a national pharmacare program based on the four principles that we have been consistently talking about, which are accessibility, affordability, appropriate use and universality. We are trying move beyond the provinces of B.C., Quebec and P.E.I. to make sure that there is accessibility, affordability, appropriate use and universality for all Canadians.

89 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/30/24 11:02:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it pretty rich when Conservatives start talking about expanding pharmacare when they are doing everything they can to block it. Three years ago, they voted against pharmacare. They could have brought forward amendments to expand it to cover people with rare diseases. They did not do that. In fact, they are saying that people are already covered. Becky in my riding writes, “Our out-of-pocket costs for my son's insulin and devices come to just over $11,000 per year. It is so expensive sometimes that the pharmacy calls me to give me a heads-up about how much an order will be, as if we have an option. Without it, he will die. Something like national pharmacare would be a game-changer for us.” Maybe my colleague can talk about if she would would be willing to work with the NDP and the Conservatives, with everybody coming together, to include rare diseases. She knows that there is a willing partner right here.

171 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/30/24 11:03:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his commitment and passion to the national pharmacare program. In my riding of Davenport, having a national pharmacare program is very popular. Constituents are very excited about phase one with the introduction of diabetes medication being covered, as well as contraceptives. I know that they are looking for an expansion of this program, which is something I am very interested in as well.

73 words

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

May/30/24 11:03:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Davenport has been a long-time supporter of pharmacare, and just like me, she has campaigned on this. Can she tell me the impact that this legislation would have on her community?

40 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/30/24 11:03:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his leadership on the pharmacare act. I will say that the impact of this legislation on my community would be huge. It is particularly very popular within the senior population, but I know that it is something that would be very helpful.

52 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

May/30/24 11:04:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to address Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare. It is an act with respect to pharmacare, and yet it would cover only diabetes and contraception. As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I can say that the bill, which is really more of a pamphlet than a real piece of legislation, has been the main focus of committee for the last month or so, about as long as it took for the government to draft the legislation. It is important to make sure that Canadians know what the pamphlet really is and, more importantly, what it is not, since many people are under the impression that Bill C-64 would mean free medications for all Canadians. This is absolutely not the case. Despite what the NDP-Liberal coalition is claiming, the pamphlet would do very little to improve the lives of the majority of Canadians, and overall it could have more negative impacts than positive. One huge issue that I have with Bill C-64 is the way that it was rammed through Parliament so quickly. Typically when legislation comes to committee, we are given ample time to hear from witnesses and to read all the briefs, submissions and recommendations from stakeholders on the legislation. This is extremely important, as there are many groups that have valuable insight and input on issues as major as pharmacare. We on this side of the House believe that they all deserve to be heard and considered, yet due to closure on what Canadians think should be a piece of legislation intervening in provincial domains, it was rushed through. When it comes to matters that would potentially affect a huge portion of the population, due consideration must be given to the opinions of experts. This is not an issue that should be handled by “Ottawa knows best”, which the Liberal-NDP coalition so often does. The Liberals think they know better than the professionals who are said to be the most impacted by the pharmacare pamphlet, so they are fine with pushing the weak legislation through. Why is that? It is because they want to be able to tell Canadians that they gave them universal pharmacare, even though that is blatant misinformation because what the bill would provide is anything but universal. There were 10 hours of committee time to hear from witnesses with respect to Bill C-64, which was not nearly enough time to cover all the industries, organizations and individuals who would be affected by the poor piece of legislation before us. My inbox was inundated with emails from groups that were pleading with the government to have a chance to give their input at committee. However, because the NDP-Liberals were so desperate to ram Bill C-64 through Parliament, their voices were not heard. It astounds me that the costly coalition is trying to tout the pamphlet as being historic and groundbreaking, when the Liberals neglected to listen to the very people who would be most impacted by the shoddy work of the file. Many groups who were fortunate enough to appear at committee said they were not consulted by the NDP-Liberals before or during the development of the pharmacare pamphlet. In what world is this acceptable? It is not just the medical field that the NDP-Liberal coalition failed to consult in advance. One of the biggest industries that would have to deal with all of the changes caused by Bill C-64 is the insurance industry. We were fortunate to be able to hear from some industry representatives on the matter at committee. Mr. Stephen Frank, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, made some important observations. Mr Frank said, “The Minister of Health has stated that people who have an existing drug plan are going to continue to enjoy the access they have to their drugs. If that's the minister's intent it's not...clear from this bill. As many of the questions reinforced today, its text is ambiguous, it repeatedly calls for universal, single-payer, pharmacare in Canada with no mention of workplace benefit plans. Read in its entirety the bill could result in practical, and even legal, barriers to our ability to provide Canadians with the drug benefits that they currently have. “For the majority of Canadians, therefore, this plan, as it's currently written, risks disrupting existing prescription drug coverage paid for by employers, limiting choice, and using scarce federal resources to simply replace existing coverage while leaving a huge gap for uninsured Canadians who rely on other medications beyond diabetic drugs and contraceptives.” There are a number of different drug insurance plans out there: government-sponsored plans, employer-sponsored plans, association-sponsored plans and private plans. The Conference Board of Canada found that 36.8 million Canadians, or 97.2%, are eligible for some form of prescription drug coverage. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce indicates that the uninsured population is 1.1 million, or 2.8%, and 3.8 million are eligible but not enrolled. That is basically 4.9 million, a little over roughly 10% of the population, yet Statistics Canada in 2019 indicated that 86.2% of Canadians are covered by at least one type of drug insurance. When an issue as important as access to medications and prescriptions comes up, it is the minister's job to ensure that all policies are clear and comprehensive and that all possible implications have been considered. Obviously, this is not being done with Bill C-64. Another witness who appeared at committee and had concerns about the clarity of this bill was Carolyne Eagan, the principal representative for the Smart Health Benefits Coalition. She stated, “thousands of our advisers have received thousands of phone calls and engaged discussion with the misperception that people can go ahead and cancel their plan and essentially replace it by the free plan, not knowing what is on that list of coverage and who it's intended for. “My own mother, who's turning 80 this year, got her letter. She was completely confused and figured she would cancel her plan and have free coverage with everything included. Luckily, I'm in the business and could explain it to her. “It is a risk and there's a great risk of employers and Canadians thinking they would lose access to a longer list of medications where their health is stable on the treatment plan that they have been prescribed. Losing that access puts everything at risk. It puts the sustainability and health of Canadians and families, and our workforce and productivity, at great risk.” This is alarming to say the very least. How many seniors in this country are going to lose their private insurance plan because the NDP-Liberal coalition failed to be clear about what the pamphlet would actually do and cover? How many seniors might have already cancelled their plan? What will stop employers from cancelling the benefit plan they offer and telling their employees to use universal pharmacare, which covers medication for only two things? These are the questions that were asked at committee, yet the minister was unable to answer. Even more alarming is that only 44% of new drugs launched globally are distributed in Canada, and only 20% of them are covered by public plans. According to a study by Innovative Medicines Canada, which, by the way, asked to present at committee and was denied. The fact of the matter is that the minister came to committee and gave blatant misinformation to Canadians, telling them that everything is going to be okay and that they must just trust him. After nine years of the Prime Minister's ruining our country, it is absurd that he is expecting public trust. The NDP-Liberal coalition has broken promise after promise, and somehow the minister thinks that he deserves or is entitled to something as sacred as the trust of Canadians. One of the briefs that was received at committee was sent by Chris MacLeod, a 54-year-old lawyer who has cystic fibrosis. This disease is one that hits home very personally, and I am grateful to Mr. MacLeod for sharing his experiences with public drug plans in this country. He stated that unfortunately Bill C-64 looks like it could be another major barrier to access for patients, especially those with rare diseases, and that notably, the federal government's attempt to force substandard public formulary coverage on everyone across the country could prove to be a disaster, with potentially deadly consequences. People who live with diseases like cystic fibrosis do not deserve to have their life made even more difficult because of incompetence with respect to the bill. The bottom line is that most Canadians already have solid drug plans that they are happy with and they do not want to have them replaced.

1503 words

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

May/30/24 11:14:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for a four-page pamphlet, the member is having a difficult time going through it and recognizing that this four-page pamphlet is going to benefit millions of Canadians who have diabetes and assist millions of Canadians who want to have contraceptives. At the end of the day, I believe there are a number of Conservatives who feel ashamed about what the House leadership has told them that they are going to be doing. They are voting against this so-called pamphlet. Does the member have any remorse about his vote on this legislation because he is being forced to vote a certain way by his leader?

109 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen

May/30/24 11:15:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find that question extremely interesting from the member, who is being compelled to vote for this piece of legislation as he speaks. If the member was to read this piece of legislation, in four pages, the member would also understand that he is misleading Canadians by saying that this would cover every piece of diabetic medication out there. That is not going to happen. In fact, it would to cover less. As a single payer, when that system is put in place, people who have health care plans that cover multiple programs would lose that ability because they would be forced to go on that single-payer plan.

111 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/30/24 11:16:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my hon. colleague talked a lot about inefficiency, for example, in the way this program was communicated. Could he also tell us how little confidence he has in this federal program in general, particularly with respect to how it is organized and how it is being rolled out? Why does the federal government believe that it can run a pharmacare program when it cannot even issue passports?

72 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen

May/30/24 11:16:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one thing I learned through her colleagues who were at committee was about the importance placed on the great health care program the Province of Quebec provides. It is a tremendous program and is one of the best in the country. It is a plan and a program available because the province provides it. Health care is a provincial issue, and every province is in a position to provide health care. Instead of the government putting the $1.5 billion in the budget toward this, it should put that money toward those who are uninsured and help those who are uninsured.

103 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/30/24 11:17:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about someone who is insured. Sheila wrote to me and said that with two type 1s in the family, with one suffering from multiple complications from 50 years with the disease, their out-of-pocket medical expenses are about $18,000 a year, and that is with extended medical. Otherwise, it would be about $30,000. That is one paycheque just to keep everyone alive and well. Maybe my colleague can say a few words to Sheila on why he is blocking getting her the help she deserves and needs.

95 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen

May/30/24 11:18:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Courtenay—Alberni, who I have worked with on health care many times over the last nine years, I applaud him for his passion and care for his constituents and for his desire to do the best that he believes he can to help. I do believe he is doing what he can to help. Ultimately, though, this piece of legislation is about diabetes coverage. It is not about rare diseases. It is about diabetes coverage, and that diabetes coverage would actually be less than what is available in other programs.

97 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/30/24 11:19:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have lived through the NDPs in Saskatchewan. When they were in power the last time, they closed 52 hospitals, closed 1,000 care beds and fired 1,000 nurses. They were an unmitigated disaster, and that is why they will never govern in Saskatchewan again.

48 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen

May/30/24 11:19:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Regina—Lewvan is so right. In Saskatchewan, we saw the total destruction of the system under the NDP government. Today, we see the building of beds to be provided for drug addicts and meth addicts. They are being provided by the provincial government because it is the provincial government's responsibility to provide that coverage.

61 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.)

May/30/24 11:20:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C‑64. It is a great pleasure to join the debate today about the pharmacare legislation that is going to bring in the first steps of pharmacare in Canada, as well as to be the last person to give a speech before we actually vote on this important piece of legislation. Quality health care, including access to prescription drugs, is vital to protecting and promoting the health and well-being of Canadians. Prescription medicines allow millions of Canadians to prevent and fight disease, manage chronic illness, ease pain and breathe better; in other words, they allow Canadians to live healthier and more productive lives. I must say, there are few issues that I hear more about than health care. It is a priority for my constituents. With rising costs, some Canadians are facing difficult choices between paying for their prescriptions and covering essentials, such as food and heat. Nobody should be put in that circumstance. We need to ensure that prescription drugs are more accessible and affordable for Canadians, including those facing the greatest financial barriers to accessing medications. That is why our government has introduced the pharmacare act. The bill proposes foundational principles for national universal pharmacare and describes the government's intent to work with provinces and territories to provide Canadians with universal, single-payer, first-dollar coverage for a range of contraceptive and diabetes products. When medicare was introduced in Canada in the 1960s, prescription drugs played a relatively limited role in health care. Most drugs outside of a hospital were inexpensive medicines for common conditions. However, in the intervening decades, the development of drugs has surged as pharmaceutical companies have pushed the science further in search of new treatments and cures. Prescription medicines are now an essential part of health care. As a share of overall health care costs, spending on prescribed drugs has risen from six per cent in 1975 to nearly 14% in 2022. This makes prescription drugs the second-largest area of health care spending in Canada, after hospital services. Today, the landscape of prescription drugs available in Canada is robust and complex, with pharmaceutical companies launching dozens of new products every year. To support effective management, in government-run, public drug plans in Canada, as well as some privately run plans, a formulary is developed, which is a list of drugs and related products that are eligible for coverage under the drug plan. To develop the formularies, public plans consider both how well a drug works and whether these products offer good value for money relative to other treatment options. While there are over a hundred public plans in Canada, there is generally good alignment with regard to the list of drugs that are eligible for coverage across provinces and territories. Many Canadians are only eligible for public drug coverage with high deductibles or premiums that provide little relief for more routine drug expenses, such as for prescribed contraception and diabetes medications. A national formulary would outline the scope of prescription drugs and related products that all Canadians should have affordable access to under national universal pharmacare. In 2019, the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, chaired by Dr. Eric Hoskins, recommended a national formulary service, one of the standards for national universal pharmacare. He proposed pharmacare coverage to be phased in, starting with a short list of essential medicines. In budget 2019, the government announced funding for a number of foundational steps towards national pharmacare, including the development of a national formulary. Back in 2022, the government announced continued progress towards this by introducing a pharmacare act and tasking the drug agency to develop a national formulary of essential medicines and a bulk purchasing plan. Preliminary work has already been completed, and a framework and process for developing a future national formulary was recommended. The panel released its final report in 2022, including giving guiding principles for the formulary and a process for bringing it into place, as well as a sample list of commonly prescribed drugs and related products for three therapeutic areas with a high volume of drug use in Canada. These are cardiovascular disease, diabetes and mental illness. This list has been expanded by looking at equity-seeking groups to make sure that we are closing the gaps in access between different communities in Canada. Actually, this foundational work is already having real-world impacts. In 2021, our government announced that it would work with the Province of Prince Edward Island on the improving affordable access to prescription drugs initiative. Under this initiative, P.E.I. is receiving funding to add new drugs to its list of publicly covered drugs and to lower the out-of-pocket costs for island residents. I just want to say that, with the legislation, P.E.I. residents have already saved $2 million in out-of-pocket costs on more than 230,000 prescriptions, and the savings continue. Our government remains firmly committed to taking the next steps in pharmacare, and the legislation today is going to help us do that by providing coverage for contraception and diabetes medicine. This is part of our overall approach to support the provinces to improve health care in Canada, including with a new deal we signed with all the provinces last year to provide better care, as well as making it easier to get access to such things as a medical practitioner in rural areas, including where I live, by providing student loan forgiveness for people to operate there.

932 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 11:26:24 p.m.
Watch

It being 11:26 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 22, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 6 and 8 to 12. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

110 words

Motions

Mr. Rick Perkins

May/30/24 11:27:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division, please.

9 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 11:27:28 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Speaker

May/31/24 12:12:33 a.m.
Watch

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 6 and 8 to 12 defeated.

19 words