SoVote

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

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

Hon. Dan Vandal

May/31/24 12:12:51 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

moved that Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

17 words

The Speaker

May/31/24 12:14:23 a.m.
Watch

The question is on the motion. 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.

51 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/31/24 12:14:56 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

8 words

The Speaker

May/31/24 12:26:22 a.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

Hon. Dan Vandal (Minister of Northern Affairs, Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Lib.)

May/31/24 12:26:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request that the decision to extend the next sitting be rescinded, pursuant to the order made Wednesday, February 28.

25 words

The Speaker

May/31/24 12:26:53 a.m.
Watch

Pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, February 28, the minister's request to rescind the decision to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted. Have a good Friday, everybody, and happy birthday to me.

35 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/31/24 12:27:34 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, nobody knows how important a clean ocean is, and how important it is to protect it, better than the Nuu-chah-nulth people in the coastal communities where I live. I have been so privileged to be able to represent eight of the Nuu-chah-nulth nations in my riding. When speaking on the floor of the House of Commons, I have mentioned Nuu-chah-nulth 102 times. To give some context, the member of Parliament who represented my riding before me for 15 years never once, on the floor of the House of Commons, said “Nuu-chah-nulth”, not one time. In fact, I have said “Ahousaht” 35 times, and I have talked about the nation of Ahousaht and delivered its message here. The member before me only brought up Ahousaht's issues twice on the floor of the House of Commons. I really am humbled, and I hold the message I carry from Ahousaht and from the Nuu-chah-nulth people very carefully and very delicately. Just a couple of weeks ago, I tabled a petition about the removal of open-net salmon farms. There were signatories from Ahousaht who had signed that petition. As members well know, when we table a petition in the House, it is not the viewpoint of the member; it is signed by constituents. The Ahousaht nation was very concerned because it could have been perceived that it supported the direction of the petition, and only the Ha’wiih, the hereditary chiefs, are the ones who represent the Nuu-chah-nulth people. I want to make it clear and I want to correct things, because of the perception that happened with Ahousaht. The Ahousaht people want to make it clear that it is the hereditary chiefs who are the decision-makers on behalf of the Ahousaht and their nation. Also, they are not requesting a compensation package. Their intent has always been to keep the salmon farms there past 2025, providing they continue to address the sea lice and pathogens. With the continued invasion technology coming eventually, they feel sea lice will be eliminated altogether. If the Government of Canada wants to work with Ahousaht, or if it wants to change its policies, it actually needs to meet with Ahousaht, nation to nation. Ahousaht is calling for a meeting with the Prime Minister. I want to apologize for any confusion I created; mistakes do happen. I want to pass on that apology to the Ahousaht people. Every minute, two garbage trucks' worth of plastic are dumped into the world's oceans. We have the longest coastline in the world. We just hosted the INC-4 conference and negotiations on plastic pollution. We know industrial waste is choking our coastline, making its way into our food and our vital ecosystems, impacting human health. The Liberals went ahead and cancelled the ghost gear fund, a $58-million project, a world-leading project, that we supported in this House. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you voted for my motion, Motion No. 151, in 2018, to tackle plastic pollution, and that was clearly highlighted and identified. I am concerned that the government is now walking away from it, despite the fact that there is critical infrastructure in place. This infrastructure is in jeopardy. It is going to impact organizations like the Coastal Restoration Society and the Ocean Legacy Foundation. They have removed 2,214 tonnes of plastic. They have helped leverage the Clean Coast, Clean Waters program out of the Province of British Columbia. We cannot get an answer from the government on whether it is going to reinstate the program. We know that if we do not remove polystyrene, it spreads throughout the ecosystem and impacts human health, the mammals, the fish, our food security, the marine food webs that we rely on, and our economy as coastal people. I am hoping we are going to get an answer today from the parliamentary secretary, since I dragged him here at 12:30 a.m. to talk about this critical issue.

680 words

Nulth
Nuu

Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.)

May/31/24 12:31:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, good morning and happy birthday. I have gotten to see, first-hand, the member's work on behalf of his constituents. They are very lucky to have him, in my opinion. Canada is a proud maritime nation that relies on its oceans as a source of food, jobs, energy, raw materials, maritime trade, tourism and recreation. Fisheries in Canada play a critical role in indigenous and non-indigenous communities and coastal communities. They are an important part of our economy. We are focused on sustainability and conservation. We are proud of our robust and sustainable, managed and well-regulated commercial fisheries. Ghost gear impacts are long-lasting. Ghost gear is a significant source of marine plastic pollution, which can have a devastating impact on marine mammals and aquatic ecosystems. It has the potential to break down into other forms of pollution, as just mentioned, such as microplastics, and other types of serious navigational hazards. Our changing climate and extreme weather events are a major contributor to gear loss. This was evident in my neck of the woods during hurricane Fiona. Coastal communities were majorly impacted by ghost gear as a result of the storm. The Government of Canada recognizes the threat that ghost gear poses in Canada and around the world, and has taken action. In 2018, Canada became a member of and leader in the Global Ghost Gear Initiative. In 2019, Fisheries and Oceans Canada established the national ghost gear program. The program is focused on working with partners and stakeholders in Canada and around the world to prevent, retrieve and responsibly dispose of ghost gear. Since 2019, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has worked with partners and stakeholders to implement a legal requirement in all commercial fisheries to report lost fishing gear, and created an electronic fishing gear reporting system to help harvesters easily report lost and retrieved gear. In 2020, the department launched the ghost gear fund to address four key ghost gear challenges: retrieval of ghost gear from our oceans, responsible disposal, acquisition and piloting of new technology to address ghost gear, and international leadership. The fund focused on engaging and working with indigenous partners and the fishing industry on solutions to this decades-old issue of ghost gear and lost gear. Through the fund, Canada distributed $58.3 million in support of 144 projects domestically and internationally. The work of our partners and harvesters is impressive, with over 2,233 tonnes of ghost gear removed from Canada's waters and more than 858 kilometres of rope retrieved to date. Through the work undertaken by our dedicated partners, we have reduced the threat of entrapment, ghost gear fishing and the threat of entanglement to marine mammals, including endangered North Atlantic right whales. The ghost gear fund has been critical in providing data needed to inform management measures to prevent gear loss in the first place. This is a key part of our ghost gear strategy for the future. We need to address any potential ghost gear threats to the marine environment, as well as establishing regulatory tools and policies designed to effectively prevent or mitigate the loss of gear in Canada. These essential pieces will feed into the ghost gear action plan, which will consider the role of climate change on fishing gear loss and consider methods to strengthen a cyclical approach to plastics used in fishing gear, address regulatory impediments to facilitate lost gear retrieval and develop new tools to reduce the amount of gear lost in the Canadian fisheries. Through the ghost gear program, Canada is committed to addressing ghost gear into the future, demonstrating the leadership of Canadian fisheries and protecting our marine ecosystems and fisheries for generations to come.

618 words