44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2024 10:00AM
- May/30/24 2:29:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is voting against pharmacare. The Bloc Québécois is voting against health care budgets. The Bloc Québécois is voting against all our efforts to provide dental care, and the list goes on.
If we were to take the Bloc's desired ratio, or if we were to compare the Outaouais with any other region in Quebec, we would see that the Outaouais region is underfunded. The number of doctors, nurses, surgeries and hospitals has fallen in the area. The Outaouais needs urgent action on health care.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-64, which deals with pharmacare and develops a framework for it. This bill, along with other investments made by our government, would help millions of Canadians who are struggling to pay for their prescription drugs. We had a very healthy process at HESA, the Standing Committee on Health. I want to thank all witnesses who appeared before the committee and those who sent written testimony because it really helped us understand the positive impact of this legislation.
This bill is a priority for our government. It establishes the fundamental principles for implementing a national pharmacare program in Canada. It also sets out our plan to work with the provinces and territories who so desire to propose universal single-payer coverage for a certain number of contraceptives and diabetes medications.
Since this bill was introduced, we have heard many facts about access to and affordability of prescription drugs within Canada. Statistics Canada's data from 2021 indicates that one in five Canadians has reported not having enough insurance to cover the cost of prescription medication in the previous 12 months. We know that having no prescription insurance coverage is associated with higher non-adherence to prescriptions because of cost. We also know that this results in some Canadians having to choose between paying for these medications and paying for other basic necessities, like food and housing.
This is why our government has consistently made commitments toward national pharmacare. Bill C-64 recognizes the critical importance of working with provinces and territories, which are responsible for the administration of health care. It also outlines our intent to work with these partners to provide universal single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications.
This legislation is an important step forward to improve health equity, affordability and outcomes and has the potential of long-term savings for the health care system. In budget 2024, we announced $1.5 billion over five years to support the launch of national pharmacare and coverage for contraception and diabetes medications. I would like to highlight the potential impact that these two drug classes, for which we are seeking to provide coverage under this legislation, would have on Canadians.
We have heard stories of people, or know someone, in our constituencies struggling to access diabetes medication or supplies due to a lack of insurance coverage through their work, or of an individual who has limited insurance coverage so they cannot choose the form of contraception that is best suited for them. For example, for a part-time uninsured worker who has type 1 diabetes and is also of reproductive age to manage her diabetes, it would cost up to $18,000 per year, leaving her unable to afford the $500 upfront cost of her preferred method of contraception, a hormonal IUD. With the introduction of this legislation, this individual would save money on costs associated with managing her diabetes and would be able to access a hormonal IUD at no cost, with no out-of-pocket expenses, once the legislation is implemented in her province.
Studies have demonstrated that publicly funded, no-cost universal contraception can result in public cost savings. Evidence from the University of British Columbia has estimated that no-cost contraception has the potential to save the B.C. health care system approximately $27 million per year. Since April 1, 2023, British Columbia is the only province in Canada to provide universal free contraceptives to all residents under the B.C. pharmacare program. In the first eight months of this program, more than 188,000 people received free contraceptives.
The same cost-cutting principle applies to diabetes medication.
Diabetes is one of the most widespread chronic diseases in Canada. Although there is no cure for diabetes, there are treatments to manage the disease.
One in four Canadians with diabetes has reported not following a treatment plan due to cost. Improving access to diabetes medications would help improve the health of some of the 3.7 million Canadians living with diabetes and would reduce the risk of serious life-changing health complications such as blindness and amputations. Beyond helping people with managing their diabetes and living healthier lives, if left untreated or poorly managed, diabetes can lead to high and unnecessary costs on the health care system due to its complications, including heart attacks, strokes and kidney failure. The full cost of diabetes to the health care system could exceed almost $40 billion by 2028, as estimated by Diabetes Canada.
The bill demonstrates the Government of Canada's commitment to consulting widely on the way forward and working with provinces, territories, indigenous peoples and other partners and stakeholders, including other political parties, to improve the accessibility, affordability and appropriate use of pharmaceutical products by reducing financial barriers and contributing to physical and mental health and well-being.
Beyond our recent work on Bill C-64, I would like to highlight some of the ongoing initiatives that this government has put in place to support our efforts toward national pharmacare.
On a national level, our government launched the first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases in March 2023, with an investment of up to $1.5 billion over three years. As part of the overall $1.5-billion investment, our government will make available up to $1.4 billion over three years to willing provinces and territories through bilateral agreements.
The strategy marks the beginning of a national approach to meeting the need for drugs used to treat rare diseases.
This funding would help provinces and territories improve access to new and emerging drugs for Canadians with rare diseases and would support enhanced access to existing drugs, early diagnosis and screening for rare diseases.
I would also like to highlight another initiative under way, which involves the excellent work by Prince Edward Island through a $35-million federal investment. Under this initiative, P.E.I. is working to improve affordable access to prescription drugs, while at the same time informing the advancement of national universal pharmacare. The work accomplished by P.E.I. has been remarkable. Since December of last year, P.E.I. has expanded access to over 100 medications to treat a variety of conditions, including heart disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis and cancer. In addition, effective June 1, 2023, P.E.I. reduced copays to five dollars for almost 60% of medications regularly used by island residents. I am pleased to share that through this initiative, P.E.I. residents have saved over $2.8 million in out-of-pocket costs as of March of this year.
Finally, on December 18, 2023, the Government of Canada announced the creation of Canada's drug agency, the CDA, with an investment of over $89.5 million over five years, starting in 2024-25. The CDA will provide the dedicated leadership and coordination needed to make Canada's drug system more sustainable and better prepared for the future, helping Canadians achieve better health outcomes. I am pleased to share that as of May 1, Canada's drug agency has officially launched.
In closing, members can see the extraordinary amount of hard work that has been dedicated to national pharmacare.
Bill C‑64 is a major step forward in our commitment to guaranteeing affordable, quality drugs for all Canadians. Our universal coverage plan for contraceptives and diabetes drugs will change the lives of individuals, families, society and our health care system.
1259 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for his advocacy on rare diseases and drug coverage. I have heard him speak before quite convincingly, and I thank him for the hard work he is doing.
The member is absolutely right. We have allocated $1.5 billion over three years, but that delivery will come through provinces and territories. We are doing the hard work to engage in bilateral agreements with provinces and territories so that we can flow that money through provinces and cover the cost of medication through bilateral agreements for rare diseases. That work is ongoing.
The work that we are doing through Bill C-64 on pharmacare is an add-on to that work. It complements the work that we are doing on rare diseases, and I look forward to continuing to work with the member opposite on this very important issue.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:57:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the truth is that the Conservatives do not support a pharmacare program. They do not support a Canadian dental care plan. They are throwing up all kinds of obstacles and denying the existence even of a Canadian dental care plan because they do not support that kind of really important help.
In fact, ideologically, they are motivated by private health care. If they have their way, that is what they will be championing, but on this side of the House, in this government, we strongly believe in a universal, single-payer system of health care and making sure that the most vulnerable in our communities get the care they need. That is why the Canadian dental care plan is such a success just in three weeks. The numbers cited by the member opposite are absolutely correct, and we will see more seniors and young people getting that health care because oral health is health.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:58:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts with regard to how the Government of Canada works with other jurisdictions, in particular, the provinces, to look at ways that we can support Canadians in terms of medications.
I see this as a good, solid first step for pharmacare. I would ask him to add some comments with respect to that.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 6:59:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member and I share an experience. We have both served in the provincial legislatures in our respective provinces, Manitoba for him and Ontario for me. We know that one of the biggest responsibilities provinces have is the delivery of health care. That is why it is imperative that the federal government work with provinces and territories in delivering these programs. That is what this pharmacare framework legislation is all about. I am very much looking forward to entering into those bilateral agreements with provinces and territories once this bill is passed into law.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the members who may have the courage to sit late with us this evening.
Today we are debating Bill C‑64 to supposedly institute a national pharmacare program. I say supposedly because that is not what the bill does. Let us speak the truth. It is a bill mainly designed to playing politics, to the benefit of who knows who because by all accounts, the NDP is dropping in the polls.
What we are seeing today is a partial implementation of this system. The Liberal government, together with the NDP, is focusing on diabetes medication and contraceptives. What we are seeing today is a bit what the Conservatives have also been trying to do for a while now in this Parliament, to introduce American-style politics here in Canada's Parliament. We know that in the United States, in some states, the right-wing parties, the right-wing Republicans are attacking a woman's right to bodily autonomy. The Liberals are very afraid of the Conservatives, often with reason, because we know that there are a lot of people in the Conservative caucus who think that women do not have the right to control their own bodies. Essentially, the pharmacare plan is being used to Americanize Canadian politics.
Now, what this bill does is say that a national pharmacare program is needed. I want to point out that we are talking here about a federal national program, because we know that Quebec is a nation. The government is imposing a format. It is called first dollar coverage, which means that an individual must be insured and must have access to medication without having to spend a single penny. I understand that it would be ideal if many insurance plans, depending on the nature of the risk, were to say that, when a person is sick, they are not responsible for their situation. They did not do anything in particular to get sick, they are just unlucky and they should be insured and not have to spend a single penny. Society will be responsible for providing full insurance coverage.
However, Quebec already has an insurance program, a mixed insurance system. It is true that people have to pay a little. For example, for the public plan, when a person does not have a workplace plan or a private plan, they pay from $0 to $700 and change per year per person, depending on income. The contribution is geared to income. Most people have a plan through their employer that is negotiated as part of their collective agreement, so it is true that, in some cases, people pay a deductible for medication. They pay a certain amount, which is often very low, but everyone in Quebec is insured and the system already exists.
The money that is going to be used to meddle in Quebec's affairs in an area where the federal government is notoriously incompetent, namely health care, should be paid out to Quebec so that we can improve the system that already exists and help it evolve. There is a list of 8,000 drugs that are covered in Quebec. That seems to have piqued people's interest. The federal government knows it is going to be very expensive, so it is buying time. The Liberals know very well that this completely universal plan, where everything is covered, will never come to fruition before the Conservatives come to power. This plan deals with two health conditions. Do people realize how huge a gap there is between reality and rhetoric and how we could have taken this money and sent it to Quebec so that these funds could be managed based on Quebec's priorities?
Some of the debates we had were disgusting in many ways. We, in the Bloc, were told that by opposing Bill C‑64, we were opposing the well-being of the people in our own ridings, and that the only possible way to show concern for people's health, supposedly, was to support a bill that will not properly establish a universal pharmacare system for Quebeckers. That is going to be addressed through questions, if the Liberals ask any. They will tell us that we are against this or that, that we are against people's health, but that is absolutely untrue. We are in favour of insurance, but Quebec is ahead of the game, and we cannot totally upend the Quebec system just because at some point, 25 years down the road, the federal government and the NDP decided to wake up one Tuesday morning. We cannot do that.
One of the reasons the NDP included this kind of program in its coalition agreement with the Liberals, and one of the reasons the only NDP member from Quebec, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, is fighting tooth and nail for Bill C‑64, is supposedly because the major unions support it. It is a delicate situation.
It is true that the cost of drugs has increased, as has the cost of health care services in general, as well as all health technologies. As a result, the cost of private group insurance has gone up. In many workplaces, employer and employee contributions have increased over the past few years. This can put pressure on people's ability to pay. This can put pressure on collective bargaining to get higher wages to deal with the cost of living. We recognize that. We know that is important.
The reason the unions might be united in supporting this federal legislation is not because Ottawa is capable, it is not because Ottawa is good, it is not because Ottawa is competent, it is because the money is in Ottawa; it is because there is a fundamental fiscal imbalance; it is because there are more revenues in Ottawa than the weight of responsibility on the federal government; it is because the provinces need money. The federal government is so determined not to transfer money unconditionally to the provinces that many people have at some point lost confidence in one day having a federal government that will act responsibly and transfer money unconditionally. At some point, the unions decided that they will support the minimum. They will support what they think is feasible in a context where the federal government's lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions and its contempt for Quebec have been institutionalized for decades. That is what is happening.
The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is grandstanding and saying that he has the support of the unions. The message that he should be sending to the unions is this. He should tell the unions that, with Ottawa running this program, they will get less value for their money. There will be fewer drugs and less coverage. The system will not be as effective. The government will be creating a redundant system. In the end, the workers are the ones who will pay. This measure is extremely anti-union.
The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie should have acted more responsibly. He should have explained to the unions that we need to stand together and look to Quebec to get the transfers with no strings attached because Quebec is prepared to improve its system. That is what should be done.
I served on the Standing Committee on Health for several months. The ability to spend, the ability to put a knife to the provinces' throats, to make them accept conditions in exchange for money is in the NDP's DNA. I spent enough time in committee to know that.
The Bloc Québécois proposed a completely reasonable amendment. It asked for the right for Quebec to opt out with full compensation because Quebec already has all the necessary infrastructure. Quebec already has a system. Quebec is prepared to improve its system. It needs that money to continue this social development, which, as with day cares, means that, today, Quebec has a social policy—
1343 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that adds a bit of spice to our evening, obviously.
As I was saying, we asked for the right to opt out with full financial compensation. That should have been granted, in the interests of patients, those who are ill and workers. However, it was denied by the Speaker on the pretext that it requires royal recommendation, when the only thing Quebec wants is to have its share of the funds that are already allocated within this bill.
This shows just how institutionalized and deep-seated Ottawa's desire is to crush Quebec, to crush Quebec's desire to act in its own areas of jurisdiction and to exercise authority within its own areas of jurisdiction based on its preferences, particularly when it comes to pharmacare. It is in the genes of Ottawa's politicians, in their DNA. What is happening here today is so unfortunate.
It is unfortunate because the interests of patients and Quebeckers are coming second. We should be greatly saddened to see that people's health is being politicized for electoral purposes. That should never be commended.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:13:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mirabel for a very well-thought-out speech.
I come from Ontario, and the Conservative Government of Ontario has something called the Ontario drug benefit program. The member is aware of, and quite rightly pointed out, the jurisdiction of the provinces.
The pharmacare program that the government is bringing forward is not really a pharmacare program. It is like an announcement. It does not cover most of the drugs that the provincial plans cover. No Canadian, no Ontarian, wants a worse plan that would cover less. Perhaps the federal government would only cover certain medications.
Could the member explain to the Liberals and the NDP a little more about the jurisdictional issues that they are dealing with, and what people on the ground in his community are really asking for?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:19:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was not an allegation, but advice, and that is quite a different matter.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Peter Julian: However, Madam Speaker, I will withdraw it if that advice was misconstrued by any member, including the member who seems to be shouting very belligerently.
This debate tonight is going to cost us $400,000, which is a lot of money. Even Conservative MPs, I think, would agree to that. However, what they have proposed in this debate tonight on pharmacare is a Conservative series of motions to delete the entire bill. That is why we are spending $400,000 of taxpayers' money. That is it. That is what they have to offer tonight, which is certainly in keeping with what they have been doing since February 29. They have been trying to block, by all means possible, the passage of pharmacare.
Why would they do that? Why would they waste $400,000 of taxpayers' money? Conservatives love spending money. We saw this under the Harper regime, with $30 billion given each year to overseas tax havens, tens of billions of dollars given to corporate CEOs in the oil and gas sector and $116 billion, including from the CMHC, given to banks to prop up their profits. I mean, there were unbelievable amounts of cash showered on lobbyists, on corporate CEOs and on banks. Conservatives love to spend money on anything but what actually helps people.
Conservatives have raised the question today, curiously, and are spending $400,000 of taxpayers' money on a useless debate where all they are offering, in terms of motions, is deleting every single clause in the bill. There is absolutely nothing respectful of Parliament to try to put forward such a motion. They are ready to spend $400,000 to basically waste a whole evening on a useless debate about deleting the bill rather than just voting against it, which is what normal people would do. However, they are unwilling to spend a penny to help people such as Amber.
Amber pays $1,000 a month for her diabetes medication. She lives in Burnaby, B.C. She has to scrimp and save; she finds it difficult to keep a roof over her head and to put food on the table. However, the member for Carleton and his entire caucus are suggesting that it is okay to burn $400,000 tonight on a useless, meaningless debate in which they are simply trying to delete every single clause of the bill. For them, it is okay to give $116 billion, including from a housing fund, for bank profits. It is okay to give tens of billions of dollars to corporate CEOs in the oil and gas sector. It is okay to put in place the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, for a loss of $30 billion each and every year over the course of the dismal Harper regime; that is nearly $300 billion that they just burned. However, when it comes to helping Amber or their own constituents with paying for diabetes medication, which can sometimes cost as much as $1,500 a month, Conservatives draw the line. They say, “No, hey, we give money to banks. We give money to oil and gas CEOs. We give money to big people. We give money to the rich. That is where we love to spend our money.” The member for Carleton, the lobbyist-in-chief of the Conservative Party, believes that this is where Canadian taxpayers' money should go, not on pharmacare and certainly not on dental care.
Now, on the dental care front, Canadians have said overwhelmingly to Conservatives that they are wrong. There were 120,000 seniors getting dental services in the first three weeks. What Conservative MP, over the course of their career, can ever point to having helped people? On the NDP side of the House, we can point to 120,000 seniors, including many in Conservative ridings, who have been helped immediately by the work of the member from Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus. The NDP forced dental care through the House of Commons even though it was voted against four years ago by both Conservatives and Liberals. We certainly proved our worth to Canadians, and we have come back on pharmacare. However, Conservatives say the same thing: “We do not want to see our constituents helped.” There are 18,000 people in each Conservative riding in the country who would benefit from having diabetes medication paid for. Amber is just an example of what millions of Canadians are living with.
Canadians are looking for contraception. Women are looking for their reproductive rights and freedoms. There are 25,000 on average in each and every Conservative riding in the country, and the Conservatives say, “No, we do not want to give them that money. We want to burn $400,000 on an all-evening debate about motions that would simply delete every single clause of the bill.” That is the one contribution that Conservatives have been making to the debate since February 29.
On this side of the House, we actually believe in helping people, unlike the member for Carleton. He has never really held a job in his life. He worked for Dairy Queen for a few weeks, and that is it. Everything else has been given to him by the Conservative Party. In my background, I had to work as a manual labourer. I had to work in the service industries. I had to work my way through school as a teacher. I worked in a brewery. I worked in an oil refinery. I have working experience. The member for Carleton has not a whit, and maybe that is why, because every single member of the NDP caucus can point to that real-life, real-world work experience, we understand that when people are struggling to make ends meet, they actually need us to help them.
Conservatives will say they want to take a few cents off a litre of gas on the price on carbon. They are going to eliminate the price on pollution, as if somehow that would help Canadians, and we know full well that already the cost of the climate crisis goes far beyond the price that it has put on pollution.
The Conservatives, despite the fact that now the member for Carleton has been leader for a couple of years, have not been able to offer a single solitary thing to Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table. One could ask, if the Conservatives are bad, what about the Liberals? The reality is that the biggest fault of the Liberal government has been that it continued all the Harper practices. We still have the infamous Harper tax haven treaties still costing us $30 billion a year, according to the PBO. The government also coughed up money to the banks over COVID and was willing to spend money from the CMHC. Instead of that going to affordable housing, it went to prop up the banks, and the government has continued the oil and gas subsidies.
The biggest thing that I can reproach the Liberals on is the fact that they have acted like the Conservatives, with some exceptions, and that is because the NDP has stepped up to force them to get dental care into place. That has been an undeniable success. It is the best new support for Canadians that we have seen in decades. Now with pharmacare, people like Amber can know in the next few months, once we pass this bill, that they will actually get supports, and Amber will not have to struggle to find $1,000 each month to pay for her diabetes medication.
That is why I am supporting the bill, and that is why I find it ridiculous that the Conservatives are forcing, at a cost of $400,000, this ridiculous debate to delete all clauses in the bill tonight.
1339 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:28:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the question is a very relevant one. On average, 18,000 people in each and every Conservative riding in the country, whether it is Cariboo—Prince George or Cumberland—Colchester, could benefit from the pharmacare provisions that the NDP have pushed the government to put into place, yet those members of Parliament, instead of helping their constituents, are siding with big pharma.
Who are they benefiting by, for the last few months, fighting to stop this bill from helping their constituents who pay $1,000, sometimes $1,500, a month for medication? I think they need some reflection, because Conservatives are not doing anything to help their constituents at all.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:30:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I like the member.
We have had a breakthrough. One Conservative has finally admitted that people actually need pharmacare. One Conservative said, “Oh gosh, yes”. His numbers are wrong, but he is right in saying that people actually need pharmacare.
Why have the Conservatives been fighting tooth and nail to block this bill since February 29? Why have they been trying to stop their constituents, 18,000 of them, who he has just admitted actually need the program, from getting the program they need?
There is a breakthrough tonight. Maybe this is a use for some of that $400,000 that the Conservatives are burning. If some Conservatives had the penny drop and finally realize that they are doing the wrong thing, they may start to do the right thing. That would be a benefit to all Canadians.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to this legislation today.
There are some aspects of public policy that I have had a great deal of interest in over the years, not only here in Ottawa, but also during the days I spent in the Manitoba legislature. Canadians have a justified expectation that provincial and federal governments will work together on the important issue of health care. It is part of our Canadian identity. In many ways, it is one of the biggest treasures we have as Canadians.
At the end of the day, when I look at this legislation, Bill C-64, I see it as a significant step forward in recognizing just how important it is, when we talk about health care, that medications need to be incorporated in a very real and tangible way into the discussions. I think of the number of people over the years who have ended up going to emergency services, had a premature death or were in situations where there were additional costs for health care. Imagine the number of different pharmacare programs that are scattered throughout the provinces. Even within a province, there are multiple different forms of pharmacare programs being provided. However, even with all of those hundred-plus national or provincial insurance programs that are out there, there are still many Canadians, hundreds of thousands, who have absolutely no insurance for prescribed medicines.
This policy that is sound and makes sense. Therefore, I am bewildered as to why, yet again, we see the official Reform Party across the way saying no to Canadians on what I believe is a significant step forward toward a national pharmacare program. It would start off with two medications, in two areas. I believe Canadians would overwhelmingly be in support of this. Whether it is people in Quebec, Manitoba, B.C. or Atlantic Canada, we will find resounding support for this initiative, and I would like to think that Conservatives, at some point in time, will open their eyes and have a better appreciation for the true benefits of this program.
This is not new for me. I have been talking about it in this House for many years. For the last half-dozen or so years, I have raised the issue. I have presented petitions on the issue. Whenever I had the opportunity to highlight the importance of pharmacare, I would often make reference to the importance of the federal government working with provincial governments across the country to encourage more participation in a truly national program. Interprovincial migration happens all the time. I have family members who live in different provinces. In fact, I have a brother who lives in B.C. and a sister who lives in Newfoundland and Labrador. The types of coverage vary. We all have opinions. Because this includes medication for people with diabetes and contraceptives for women, we would all benefit directly because we all have family members or know people who would benefit from that. I would personally love to see an add-on to it with respect to shingles.
I understand that in some provinces there is better coverage than in other provinces. That is one reason I would argue, as my daughter has in Manitoba, that we need to get provinces to come to the table in such a way that we could recognize the best pharmacare program that we could have, while expanding it to what it ideally could and should be into the future, with a higher sense of co-operation. I believe that is the answer. I think it was back in 2016 or 2017, I recall being on Keewatin Street in the north end of Winnipeg, asking people to sign a petition on the importance of national health care and on a national pharmacare program.
The NDP House leader made reference to a Quebec union and its thoughts about ensuring not only that this program sees the light of the day, but also that all politicians get behind it. There is a saying from the national nurses union that health care workers understand and they appreciate. If one goes into a hospital, one will find, at least in Manitoba, that one's medications are covered. When one leaves the hospital, depending on their situation and what kind of a plan they might have, they will get their medication. Many may not have a plan, so they will not get the medications, and often, the person returns to a hospital situation. I have talked to individuals, particularly seniors, who talk about medications versus food. That is a real discussion that takes place, sadly. From a personal point of view, the pharmacare program has been more important to me than the dental care program, and we have seen the success of the dental care program.
As a government, with the Prime Minister, we have seen how much Liberals value our health care system, our Canadian identity, virtually from the get-go with the buying of prescription medications to be circulated in order to support provinces, until not that long ago when we made a contribution of $198 billion over the next 10 years to support our health care system so that we can enhance programs such as staffing requirements, long-term care and mental health. Those are expectations our constituents have. That is the type of thing that we are delivering because we have seen agreement after agreement with provinces and Ottawa dealing with health care, and we recognize just how important the issue is. We continue to be able to work with the different jurisdictions.
I believe that when we think about issues like mental health, dental services, pharmaceuticals and long-term care, they are all things that I believe, through the Canada Health Act, we have a responsibility to show leadership for. I like to think that whether it is a territory or a province, there is a some semblance of what we could expect and that it would be of a similar nature. That is why we have transfer payments, equalization payments and so much more. That is why we have a government that not only understands it, but it brings in budgetary measures to support it and legislative measures like we are debating today on Bill C-64. The Conservative Party needs to wake up and understand what Canadians want. That is better quality health care, and Bill C-64 delivers just that. Conservatives should be voting in favour of it, not filibustering.
1091 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:42:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not get to say this very often, almost never, in the House, but that speech by the member was so much better than the previous drivel that we heard from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. It was not good, but better than what the NDP House leader from B.C. had said, which was incoherent babble.
I do have a question for the member, which I asked the previous health minister and the current health minister at committee: How many provincial health ministers at FPT meetings asked for a pharmacare program? I have talked to the health minister in Saskatchewan, and this was never on the agenda at any FPT meeting. How many provincial health ministers asked the NDP-Liberal government to bring in this program?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, which seeks to support the implementation of a national, universal pharmacare program.
I am always ready to champion a federalism that meets the needs of all Canadians, but there are a number of things that bother me about Bill C-64. Apart from the fact that it interferes in provincial jurisdictions, it was born of the Liberals' need to keep a minority government alive. That is why we are debating this bill tonight. Another thing that bothers me about Bill C-64 is that the Liberals are using the NDP like a lapdog, keeping it warm and cozy, only too happy to give in to the NDP's costly demands, while keeping it on a tight leash in a minority government that is on life support until the fall of 2025.
Since this bill does not respect provincial jurisdictions, it is obviously not legitimate. I have a hard time sorting out the reasons for this interference in provincial jurisdictions, which has become chronic over time, since the arrival of this Liberal government. I am even beginning to wonder whether the Bloc Québécois is not starting to rub off on the Liberal-NDP government in the House on other subjects.
One things is certain. Canadians are finding it increasingly difficult to identify with those who have become spokespeople for every issue instead of minding their own business. The Bloc Québécois is another example. On many issues, they are undermining the real well-being of Canadians, and especially Quebeckers, by playing provincial politics in the federal arena. They are confusing everyone.
In its current form, Bill C-64 would replace the private insurance system with a single insurance system. It would be a federal monopoly administered by a centralizing and incompetent Liberal government that has trouble managing its own departments and portfolios. For example, I am thinking about this government's inability to issue passports on time, which we experienced two years ago. I am not even sure what to say about the government's financial management, when it keeps spending borrowed money on the backs of future generations and dragging us towards a chronic and structural deficit. It is distressing to see a Liberal government that is incompetent across the board being supported by the NDP and, unfortunately, all too often by the Bloc Québécois as well.
Canadians are increasingly vulnerable, not because they lack access to medication in the provinces, but because they can no longer make ends meet. They have to make difficult choices between food and housing. Bill C-64 is just another idea where the expense is not worth the cost. Even more of taxpayers' money is being wasted in the expansion of the federal government, which is becoming increasingly intrusive and costly. Bill C-64 was born of noble intentions, but implementing it would create yet another inefficient and costly bureaucracy on top of the one that has been far too intrusive since 2015.
Currently, according to the brief submitted by Innovative Medicines Canada to the Standing Committee on Health, 97.2% of Canada's population benefits from access to prescription drug coverage through a public or private pharmacare plan. However, one in 10 Canadians are not enrolled in a government program that would cover the costs, even though they are entitled to it.
If we want to improve coverage, then we need to better inform Canadians. We do not need to destroy what is already in place to rebuild on a new foundation that has not been proven. The precursor pharmacare system in the province of Quebec, which was implemented 28 years ago, has been proven. The system is already practically universal. Common sense tells us that to improve coverage and access we just need to have targeted policies for the populations that do not have access. It is unnecessary to demolish what is already working, contrary to what the Liberals are currently proposing.
Monopolies of any kind have rarely served the interests of citizens. Replacing all the private drug plans entails major risks, including a reduction in the quality of service. As a result of competition, approximately twice as many new drugs are made available to patients on the private market in half the time.
Canadians appreciate this efficient system. Because it is a high-quality system, hospitals are less crowded, which in turn means lower costs. As I was saying earlier, this is yet another attempt by the Liberal government to interfere in provincial jurisdictions without consultation.
The health minister suggested that it would be absolutely out of the question for Quebec to give Ottawa free rein to create a pharmacare program in the province, unless it gives Quebec the right to opt out with full financial compensation, which the Prime Minister has no intention of doing. The same goes for Alberta.
The real reason behind this bill is that the Liberals have no choice but to bring forward this proposal because it is a condition of the NDP's support for the Liberal government and its survival, which has been at risk since its re-election. They outright ignore all the misgivings about the need for the bill and especially the costs associated with implementing it, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us. The survival of the costly coalition is at stake. They are trying once again to establish an even more centralist government, forgetting the country's federative nature and attempting to make it a unitary state.
The government should be more pragmatic and less ideological about this bill, otherwise all its efforts will be counterproductive. Instead of thinking about kickbacks to stay in power, the Liberal government should recognize the following facts. This is not a pharmacare plan. It is an empty promise that will not cover the vast majority of drugs used by Canadians.
After nine years of Liberal governance, the current Prime Minister has made a lot of promises. He promised affordable housing, and then he doubled the cost of housing. He promised that the carbon tax would cost nothing, and now we learn that 60% of families are paying more because of the carbon tax. He promised that taxes would be lowered but they went up. He promised safe streets, but ushered in crime, chaos, drugs and disorder.
This Liberal-NDP government cannot be trusted to deliver anything worthwhile to Canadians. In fact, the people have been betrayed, along with the working class too, to keep the Prime Minister in power while he doubles the cost of housing and quadruples the carbon tax.
Most Canadians already have prescription drug coverage. Many worry about losing the coverage they already have, coverage that works for them. There are also serious concerns about the cost of this proposal. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that it could cost tens of billions of dollars. Canadians cannot afford it at a time when they cannot even afford to pay their bills because of this Prime Minister. No Canadian wants a system that performs less well, offers less coverage, costs more and creates a massive new bureaucracy in Ottawa.
In closing, I want to reassure concerned voters who are not buying it. The common-sense Conservatives are going to abolish the carbon tax and bring down the prices of the basic goods that Canadians need. Canadians do not need legislation like this in these difficult times. What they need is an election as soon as possible to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
1275 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are talking about pharmacare and the member is talking about cutting the carbon tax.
Let me read a quote from Linda Silas: “Every day, nurses witness the profound impact of poor access to medications on their patients’ health.” She has addressed this to all members of Parliament. Further down she says, “Get it done for the sake of our patients, for the future of our health care system and for the well-being of our country. VOTE “YES” ON BILL C-64.” Linda happens to be the president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions.
Could the member provide his thoughts on why the Conservative Party is going against our professional health care providers, who really want to see this legislation pass because they understand it?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:58:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the member has had a long career and that he lived through the Harper regime, the most expensive regime in Canadian history. Some $116 billion was given to the big banks to increase their profits. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, $30 billion a year went to tax havens thanks to Mr. Harper and his team. Of course, there was also all the money given to CEOs in the oil patch.
The costly Conservatives spent a lot of money on the rich and affluent. However, now we are talking about pharmacare, which will help people in his riding. It will help 18,000 people with diabetes who are struggling every month to pay sometimes up to $1,000 for their medication.
The question I want to ask my friend is very simple. Why are the Conservatives so keen on spending money on billionaires, CEOs and banks, but do not want to give a penny to people struggling to pay for their medication, such as diabetes medication?
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 8:02:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, is it always an honour to rise in this House.
I want to start on a personal level. I was always so proud to grow up with my mother as a family physician, who continues to practice medicine in Winnipeg. In the past number of years, she has moved into working with people battling addictions. Much of my understanding of the health care system and how we care for people in our society has come through the compassion, expertise and professionalism that I have seen on my mother's part, so it is with her in mind that I rise today to speak about pharmacare.
Like so many of our colleagues in the House, I have heard from constituents who are eager for the government to move in a direction that will allow for a universal pharmacare plan. There are a variety of reasons for this, which I will get to later in my remarks. However, what I have heard primarily from seniors, whether it is on the government's plan for dental care, the proposed piece of legislation we are talking about today or investments in aging in place with dignity, is that they are extremely enthusiastic about the direction the government is headed in relation to a variety of different health care policies.
As members know, recently there was an election in my home province of Manitoba. We have been working collaboratively with the new government, and I was very proud to join other colleagues, as well as the premier and the Manitoba health minister, not too long ago to announce a $630-million health care deal with the Province of Manitoba. It is going to see us invest directly in a variety of areas that are going to make a difference in the lives of my constituents, and Winnipeggers and Manitobans broadly speaking. They include things like a reduction in wait times, investments in mental health and addiction and ensuring that we have greater efficiency in our health care system.
I have talked often in this chamber about my experience as a teacher, as a principal and as a coach, having worked for many years with young people, and I am proud of the investments we are making in youth mental health. I would also note that many of the students I have worked with in the northwest part of the city of Winnipeg are unfortunately, and in many instances disproportionately, impacted by type 2 diabetes. It is indigenous communities in particular that are facing those challenges. I come to this debate with some first-hand experience, having seen how difficult it can be to operate without coverage.
Our government promised to bring in a national, universal pharmacare plan so that all Canadians can have access to the prescription drugs that they need.
Our government worked on developing a solid foundation for building a national, universal pharmacare program. This work includes investments in the national strategy for drugs for rare diseases to help Canadians with rare diseases access the drugs they need. It also includes the announcement of the creation of a Canadian drug agency in December 2023.
With the help of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, we have also completed preliminary work toward a national formulary. This work included the establishment of a multidisciplinary advisory panel with a recommended framework and process for the development of a national formulary.
In Canada, the roles and responsibilities for health care services are shared between provincial and territorial governments and the federal government, as we know.
The provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the management, organization and delivery of health care services for their residents, which includes determining which drugs are reimbursed, and under what conditions, for their eligible populations.
We look forward to continuing to collaborate with our provincial and territorial partners to improve the accessibility to and affordability of prescription drugs for Canadians. The bill would do just that, starting with contraception and diabetes products.
By continuing our work together and making wise investments, we can ensure that the health care system is there for us when we need it, both now and in years to come.
I said at the outset of my remarks that I spent a number of years as an educator, and it was during that time that I got to know kids and their families on very personal levels. I did not just get to understand them as students, but I got to understand them as people, including all the challenges that come along with daily life. Some of those challenges included access to health care.
I cannot tell members how many times, for example, I would have a first nations single mother with a child in crisis in my office, and she was not sure how to advocate well for her child, because they had had so many challenges over the years in interacting with the health care system. I remember one particular instance where a child was having some significant mental health issues, and I said that I thought we really needed to call the son's doctor and get an appointment for him. The mother picked up the phone and called the doctor, and the receptionist at the office answered the phone and said that, unfortunately, they did not have a spot for the next four months. This was a young person who was contemplating taking their own life at the time.
I was fortunate enough to be able to help that family in that particular instance. This was by virtue of something I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, and that is having seen my mother's ability to operate in and navigate the system. However, this is not uncommon, particularly for marginalized communities. In Manitoba more specifically, there are indigenous communities, whether first nations, Métis or Inuit, as well as newcomers, who have difficulty accessing our health care system for a variety of different reasons.
In addition, in many of these families, there were single mothers or single fathers working multiple jobs. They had to go long ways across the city in order to make ends meet and to provide for their families, and they did not have access to plans. They did not have access to medications that would allow them to live healthier and more prosperous lives.
I have those families and those kids in mind when I think about what the bill would mean for them and their future. I am proud to have the opportunity to rise today to talk about what we can accomplish through this historic piece of legislation.
I know that my time is running short, so with that, I will gladly take my seat for a moment and welcome questions from my colleagues across the way.
1137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 8:27:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is not true. That is not the reason why the members of the Conservative Party have difficulty with this bill. The reality is that when it comes to diabetes and contraceptives, millions of Canadians will actually have benefits that many of them would never have had without the passage of this legislation. The member might be sympathetic as an individual member, but let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party of Canada, under the current far-right leadership of the leader today, does not support national pharmacare in any fashion whatsoever.
The member should not be trying to confuse the debate on this issue, to try to imply that it is some bogus reason as to why they are not supporting it. He might support it individually, but the party, the official opposition, does not.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 8:28:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at every step of the way, we asked for clarification from the minister and his charges for definitions and terms that were contained within this four-page document. The member would like to stand up, wildly move his hands, speak very loudly and conflate the issues. This is not universal pharmacare. The Liberals are billing it as some “be-all and end-all”, which it is not. The member knows better and he needs to be honest with Canadians.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
