SoVote

Jun/3/24 1:03:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, how do we know that Liberals are down in the polls? We know because they are bringing back these divisive issues. They want to play politics as opposed to working for the best interests of Canadians. The member, and so many from both the Liberal caucus and the New Democratic caucus, are terrified about the prospect of not getting their pensions, so they are trying to divide Canadians. The Leader of the Opposition has been clear: Conservatives are here to work for Canadians, including Canadian women. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

93 words

Polls

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/3/24 1:04:25 p.m.
Watch

On a point of order, the hon. member for Abbotsford.

10 words

Hon. Ed Fast

Jun/3/24 1:04:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to that answer, I could not hear what my colleague was saying. The member for Kingston and the Islands, and many others, such as the member for—

34 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/3/24 1:04:42 p.m.
Watch

I noticed it was really loud in here.

8 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 1:04:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 57 to concur in the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

122 words

Motions

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/3/24 1:05:42 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Jun/3/24 1:05:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64 Bill C-35

Mr. Speaker, I have risen three times today because I was so eager to speak. I am pleased to speak today at third reading of Bill C-64. We have been debating this bill for a long time. Clause-by-clause study took place last week, but we do need to wind up the debate at some point. Before continuing with my speech, I would ask my colleagues to respect my right to speak and not talk over me. First, to make things clear, if they are not already, the Bloc Québécois's position has not changed one iota: We are against Bill C-64. I would like to remind my colleagues of the purpose of the bill. Obviously, a bill can have several different purposes, depending on which side we are on. Sometimes it may seem like a bill has a noble goal, but that may not be the case. I would like to talk about something that is totally obvious to me but that people tend to forget when we get into these debates. Bill C‑64 addresses one of the 27 items in the agreement that the Liberals reached with the NDP in 2022 to stay in power by forming a sort of coalition with the NDP. This may have been in the NDP's best interests, although maybe it will want to argue that point. I would like to remind the House of the wording of the second item in this agreement: “Continuing progress towards a universal national pharmacare program by passing a Canada Pharmacare Act by the end of 2023”. They want to “continu[e] progress”. We often hear similar phrases in the House, phrases like continuing to move forward, continuing progress or continuing to do something. That is all very vague, in my opinion. I would imagine that pretty much anything we do is progress, even the bill we are currently discussing. Perhaps that covers the disagreement there was between the Liberals and the NDP on this issue. As members know, the Liberals dragged their feet on introducing this bill. This bill was in the works for years. They were talking about it in 2022. It was introduced on February 29. They could not agree on the cost of the measure. Of course we would like to see a pharmacare act, but perhaps not at all costs, if my colleagues will pardon the pun. This bill was introduced on February 29, at the very last minute, to save the agreement and to save the Liberals. I might add that it was also to save the NDP. I must say that I did not hold my breath at the time. A moment ago, I talked about the purpose of the bill. I think that this bill was introduced purely for the purpose of garnering votes. It could have been introduced sooner, but there was an agreement. The NDP would not want to bring the government down. That is why I was not surprised when the bill was introduced this year, one year away from the election, just before the budget. I also get the feeling that it may have been because the government is short on ideas. I have spoken many times about the government's lack of vision. It has been eight, almost nine, years since the government came to power. It will have been 10 years by the time the election comes around. I have noticed that the House is copying the debates taking place south of the border. Take the debates over contraceptives and diabetes medication. It is not that I am not happy to see my colleagues across the aisle and next to me tackling the official opposition, to use a soccer term, here in the House over a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body. I was not unhappy about that. However, it is being done for the purpose of gaining votes. There is one party in the House that wants to limit women's rights. This may resonate with some people, even me, but it should not be done for that purpose alone. In fact, maybe it was entirely arbitrary. The government did not know what to do, what to propose. It desperately wanted pharmacare, but it had no idea what it really wanted to do, so it thought about what could help it win votes. It figured that it could take certain debates from the U.S. bipartisan system and copy them here to pit the good guys against the bad guys. In short, I am not saying that these billions of dollars that will be spent by the government are a form of pre-election advertising, but that is what it looks like. Again, Quebeckers and Canadians need to be aware of the partisan agenda hidden behind this bill. There is a hidden objective. I think it takes a certain kind of courage to oppose a bill that seems virtuous. That is what we are being told: If we do not vote in favour of the bill, it is because we are against it. I, of course, am 100% in favour of a woman's right to choose and all methods of contraception. I am a member of the Bloc Québécois. I speak on behalf of Quebec. I am not against the provinces' positions. I do not mind if they decide that the federal government can interfere in their jurisdictions. That is their choice, and I respect it. At the same time, that is not what I want for Quebec. That is why the Bloc Québécois proposed the following amendment in committee: Despite subsections (1) and (2), a province or territory may elect not to participate in national universal pharmacare, in which case that province or territory remains unconditionally entitled to receive payments in order to maintain the accessibility and affordability of the prescription drugs and related products already covered by its public pharmacare. Our amendment concerns the ability to opt out with full compensation from the pharmacare program. It was not debated because we could not debate it in committee during clause-by-clause study of the bill. It was not rejected either. I would say that what happened is even worse: It was ruled inadmissible. I wish I could avoid talking about the reasons the committee chair ruled the amendment inadmissible, but I think it is important to go over them because this is just another clear demonstration of bad faith, in my opinion, and the federal government's disregard for the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. It was argued that the amendment required a royal recommendation, which is false. What we were told is that it will generate additional costs and that, since we are an opposition party, it requires a royal recommendation. I hate to say it, but that is absolutely false. The amendment did not require a royal recommendation, because the funds had already been committed by the government. The Bloc Québécois's amendment was therefore legitimate and admissible. This is not the only time that government members have made arguments that do not hold water and that are merely a pretext to interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction. The government did the same thing in the case of Bill C-35, which deals with the child care program. As far as I am concerned, this is not only a sign of disrespect toward Quebec, it is basically an insult, because over the decades, Quebec has built a social safety net that is the envy of North America. We have pharmacare, as well as dental coverage for young people. We have free education and early childhood centres. We have made some huge social advances. In this case, the federal government is digging in its heels and refusing to allow Quebec to opt out unconditionally with full compensation. As I see it, Ottawa is refusing to recognize Quebec's decades of leadership in this area. The same thing happened with child care centres and Bill C‑35. What is more, the federal government is doing all this without having jurisdiction over this area or having any expertise in care and social services. Quebec is being denied something we have every right to request by a government that lacks both expertise and jurisdiction. The government has no compunction about turning us down, but at the same time, it has to follow our example with a view to “continuing progress”, as they put it so eloquently. I have no problem with the federal government continuing progress, but I do not want this progress to come at Quebec's expense. As I said before, Quebec already has a public pharmacare plan for part of the population that the government introduced nearly 30 years ago. I need to repeat this because I think some people have trouble hearing it. This is not the case with everyone, but in the House, it is true of nearly the majority. As far as Canada is concerned, it is trying to catch up. It is behind by 30 years, so now it is encroaching on our jurisdiction. It may be more. We also have a private plan offered by employers, to which workers contribute as well. No one in Quebec lacks pharmacare coverage. People need to stop spreading falsehoods. The choice was made by Quebeckers. It was not Ottawa that made this choice, it was Quebec. Our plan is also paid for by Quebeckers. The federal government did not give a red cent for this plan. We know what is right for us. We do not need someone else to tell us. We are capable of taking care of ourselves. We do not need paternalistic Ottawa trying to manage a pharmacare plan in Quebec without expertise, without legitimacy and without experience. I keep thinking that what the Bloc Québécois is asking from the federal government is simple and it makes sense. We are asking the federal government to take care of its own responsibilities, such as foreign affairs, defence and fisheries. It seems to me that the federal government has enough responsibilities. It has more than enough things to take care of. Perhaps that is not sexy enough for the government. I should ask that question. Is that sexy enough for the government? Health and education are the two areas that affect people the most. Of course, health is a matter of major importance. We talk about the things we care about. If we are not alive, then nothing else matters, obviously. Health is important. These are the two budget items that are most important for Quebec. The government knows that, for years now, its health transfers have been insufficient. They are shrinking down to nothing. It knows all that. If the government reduces the transfers, the burden will fall heavily on Quebec and the provinces. Who gets the blame when there is a shortage of care and services? Quebec and the provinces, obviously. Jean Chrétien understood this well. He bragged to the G7 that all he had to do to balance the budget was reduce health transfers. He said that Canadians would look for someone to blame, but that they would not blame the federal government, because health is under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. They are the ones who would be cutting health care and education. For him, it was simple: Canadians would take it out on the provinces. The federal government would be able to achieve a balanced budget, and no one would hold anything against it. The provinces would pay the price, both literally and figuratively. It always comes down to this, unfortunately, but as a separatist, I have no other choice. I am a separatist and I am pragmatic. It always comes down to the fiscal imbalance. The federal government collects more money than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, while the provinces and Quebec are not collecting enough to manage their own jurisdictions. They are short of money, which gives the federal government an opening to spend money on things under Quebec's and the provinces' jursidiction. It is unbelievable. It is like the federal government is stealing from the provinces and Quebec. It is strangling them. If they meet certain conditions, it will back off and let them breathe again. We would not thank anyone who is strangling us for stopping. We understand that interference is always done with a purpose. I mentioned this earlier, but it is still the same thing with the government and its minions. The federal government swoops in like a saviour, slapping its flag on cheques, which it tosses around like confetti, and the cavalry of government members run around, trumpets blaring, trying to solve the problems it created itself. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like that image. It has definite educational value. However, although we may be laughing over it, it is a hard fact. While the government is gaily running around, it has forgotten why it was elected. Perhaps it does not know. Perhaps it has forgotten. When a government has no vision, it may take a peek in the neighbour's yard, looking for direction. Again, interfering in areas of provincial and Quebec jurisdiction has a purpose for them. In fact, the purpose is twofold in this case: one, to keep the government in power, and two, to prepare for the next election. Until we gain independence, Quebeckers will have to fight to make sure this government respects us, respects our expertise and experience and gives us what is ours, meaning our money and, of course, control over our own jurisdictions. It will also have to respect the fact that we have our own pharmacare program. Quebeckers are capable of discussing amongst ourselves, at home, and improving our pharmacare plan with our experts, based on our experience and our wishes. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebeckers what to do. We refuse to let our own tax money be used against us and at our expense. One way to respect us is to vote down Bill C‑64. I may be a member of the Bloc Québécois, but I am not the only one who says so. The Quebec National Assembly has said it too. Christian Dubé, Quebec's health minister, pointed it out the day before the bill was introduced. We do not want this bill. We do not want the federal government to encroach on areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. I would remind the House that the National Assembly alone speaks for all Quebeckers. In closing, I would therefore like to let the voices of Quebeckers be heard through the unanimous demands of the National Assembly for compensation to be paid to Quebec. That is what the Bloc Québécois has asked for, because the Bloc Québécois speaks on behalf of Quebeckers. The motion unanimously adopted by the National Assembly on June 14, 2019, reads as follows: THAT the National Assembly acknowledge the federal report recommending the establishment of a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan; THAT it reaffirm the Government of Québec's exclusive jurisdiction over health; THAT it also reaffirm that Québec has had its own general prescription insurance plan for 20 years; THAT it indicate to the federal government that Québec refuses to adhere to a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan; THAT it ask the Government of Québec to maintain its prescription drug insurance plan and that it demand full financial compensation from the federal government if a project for a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan is officially tabled. That was back in 2019, so the Quebec government made its position clear quite some time ago. Today, I am still trying to be a voice for the National Assembly. I hoped that the federal government would respect Quebec's decision to refuse to join the federal plan, for example, in the motion put forward at the committee studying Bill C‑64. We respect the provinces that want to take part in the program set out in the bill, since coverage is rather inconsistent across Canada, but in Quebec, everyone is covered by a pharmacare program. It is up to us to decide what we want to do next. It is not up to the federal government.

2770 words

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

Jun/3/24 1:24:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, I am quite fond of the member, but she just said that we need to listen to Quebeckers. However, as the Bloc Québécois members should know, the largest coalition in Quebec's history, namely two million people under the umbrella of all the central labour unions, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Union des consommateurs and all the allied groups around the Fédération de la santé et des services sociaux, is calling for us to pass this bill, Bill C‑64. The coalition members have been very critical of the current program in Quebec, including the fact that there are user fees for the drugs and many people are not covered. There are a lot of problems with the current situation. This broad coalition that the Bloc Québécois seems to refuse to listen to, says the following: We are asking the federal government not to give in to the provinces and territories, which are asking for an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation. The coalition members want to have the NDP's public, universal pharmacare program. I have a very simple question. Why is the Bloc Québécois refusing to listen to Quebeckers?

248 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Jun/3/24 1:25:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised by my colleague's question. Perhaps others have answered it, but I will answer again. I have listened to what the coalition of labour unions are saying. I understand that they want improvements to pharmacare in Quebec, but I will repeat that it is up to Quebeckers to do that. Yes, there can be a coalition. I understand that, but the fact remains that we have a National Assembly and that is the body that will make the decisions. It is the one in charge. Sometimes it seems as though Canada may do something worthwhile when it gets involved, and we think that something is going to happen. However, what I would say to my colleague is that there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip when it comes to this bill. There is a really long way to go. There is a committee that is going to meet and hold consultations. Quebec already has the experience and the expertise. Why not leave the task to a government that already knows how the system works? The federal government can tell Quebeckers that it wants to improve the pharmacare system, but as I said, we will discuss the matter among ourselves. However, the federal government can send us the money that it does not know how to spend because it is unable to take care of its own jurisdictions. We will improve the system. Quebec has said that it will improve its pharmacare program. I think that the question is irrelevant. I am really pleased that there are ways to exert pressure to help us make gains, but the federal government needs to talk to the ones who are in charge, the Quebec National Assembly and Quebec, when it comes to improving our pharmacare program. I do not need a paternalistic party telling Quebec what to do.

315 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/3/24 1:27:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has clearly demonstrated, Bill C‑64 is much more the expression of an election agreement than of a bill. Why? That would be because a bill of this scope would have required prior coordination, at least with the nation that put a system in place 30 years ago. Here in the House, the Quebec nation has been symbolically recognized on two occasions, but the moment that that has a legislative impact, it is out of the question. The National Assembly unanimously agreed that it wanted the right to opt out with full compensation to improve its plan. What is so hard to understand about that? My colleague clearly demonstrated that. The worst part is that, in addition to the first phase of the bill, the government intends to implement something with no accountability. Has anyone ever seen a Canadian prime minister lose their seat in an election because of health care? It has never happened. Why? Because health care has never been their jurisdiction. In Quebec, however, governments have fallen over health care. The government wants to meddle in the affairs of others, and with no political accountability, to boot. What does my colleague think about that?

205 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Jun/3/24 1:29:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is as though my colleague from Montcalm can read my mind. Obviously, I agree with him. It makes perfect sense. I tried to bring up the election issue. I know that people may not always want to talk about it in the House, because everyone wants to be above the fray. However, at a certain point, we feel we need to point out some of the blind spots that others may not see. Sometimes we have to point out certain things that have been forgotten. I mentioned the National Assembly motion. That was in 2019. It has been on the table for a long time, since June 2019. Let us think about it. That was before the election that the Prime Minister called because he wanted to win a majority. That is not what happened. We have been discussing this for a long time. We are just not seeing it. I am not saying that there is not some merit behind it but, as far as I am concerned, it is almost purely electoral. Once again, we refuse to support it.

184 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/3/24 1:30:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois appears not to be answering the question. A vast coalition of two million Quebeckers told the Bloc Québécois to vote in favour of Bill C-64. Its members are critical of Quebec's existing plan. I am quoting them because it is important. I am referring to the Union des consommateurs, the Fédération interprofessionalle de la santé du Québec, the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, which, on behalf of two million Quebeckers, are calling on Bloc Québécois members, who are members for Quebec after all, to listen to them and take action by passing Bill C‑64, which the NDP introduced in Parliament. Let us be clear. I am quoting a coalition that the Bloc Québécois seems unwilling to listen to. We are asking the federal government not to give in to the provinces and territories that are asking for an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation. This coalition is saying that we need to pass Bill C‑64 and we need these negotiations. Why does the Bloc Québécois insist on blocking this bill and refuse to listen to Quebeckers who want it to pass?

250 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Jun/3/24 1:31:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is actually the voice of the Quebec National Assembly. My colleague repeated his question, and I will repeat the answer. The Quebec National Assembly is made up of people elected from all parties. This is a unanimous motion supported by all parties, including Québec Solidaire. Everyone agrees that the answer is no, that we want to opt out with full compensation. I am an elected member of Parliament. I work for all of my constituents. I have a great deal of respect for the unions, and I would even say that I get along very well with them. I share the same values, namely solidarity and fairness. However, I am an elected official, so I represent the people. I do not just represent the interests of unions and other organizations. It makes me a little uncomfortable to see my colleague siding with organizations, no matter which ones, rather than the people. I am sure the unions will agree with me that they should be the ones to decide for elected officials. Of course, pressure tactics are needed. Let us talk. Discussions are needed, yes, but that can also happen in Quebec. I want to repeat the essential part my answer, so that it is clearly understood. I represent the Bloc Québécois and the people of Quebec through the National Assembly. That means everyone, and it is legitimate.

242 words

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP)

Jun/3/24 1:33:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for me to split my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

25 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/3/24 1:33:38 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby South.

16 words

Mr. Jagmeet Singh

Jun/3/24 1:33:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today is a very historic day. The New Democrats have been fighting for universal pharmacare for generations. I think about Tommy Douglas. When he led the charge to bring in universal health care in Canada, it was always envisioned that medication coverage should be included. We are the only country in the world that has universal health care that does not also include medication coverage. Every other country figured out that if it could cover people's visits to the doctor but they could not afford the medication they needed, they would end up getting more and more sick and end up in emergency rooms. We know that the Liberals and Conservatives have opposed universal pharmacare whenever we have brought this idea up, but the New Democrats have not stopped. We know that the Liberals have promised pharmacare for 30 years and have broken that promise for 30 years, but we have not given up. We know that the Liberals and Conservatives have voted against this idea multiple times, but we have not given up. In committee, the Conservatives tried to block free birth control and free diabetes medication and devices, but we did not give up. Today we are joined by a number of allies from across the country, labour activists and health coalition activists, who have been fighting for this. I know that the legislation is not perfect, but the legislation would create the foundation for pharmacare in our country. The legislation would create the foundation to move forward with universal pharmacare for all Canadians, starting with free birth control and diabetes medication and devices. As I was saying, I am very honoured to speak today because it is a truly historic day. Thanks to our party's work, thanks to the unions' work, thanks to the coalition of health advocates' work, we are in the process of passing a bill that will lay the foundation for a universal pharmacare program in Canada. The Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives are trying to block this bill, but we will not stop our work. We believe that Quebeckers deserve a program that covers all drug costs, starting with free access to contraceptives, as well as diabetes devices and medications. Thanks to the NDP and our allies, we are proud to say that this bill will pass today and that we will lay the foundation for a universal pharmacare program. One dollar was the price that the Canadian inventors of insulin sold the patent for because they believed that it was more important to save lives than it was to make a profit. Fast forward to today, and pharmaceutical companies are making thousands of dollars off the backs of Canadians to buy life-saving insulin. While big pharma is ripping off Canadians, it looks like Conservatives and Liberals, historically, have been taking their side. Now, we have the Liberals on side, and it looks like Conservatives are backing up big pharma that does not want Canadians to have access to free medication. Let us think about how much big pharma is ripping off Canadians just to have life-saving medication. I am concerned that Conservatives are not outraged that Canadians are having to spend money out-of-pocket to buy their medication. People are skipping meals so that they can afford their insulin. People are not taking medication and are becoming more and more sick. Everyone in this room should be angry about that. Pharmacare would save Canadians money and would save their lives. A few years ago, I met a young boy with diabetes. He was around 10 years old. I met him with his father and he shared his story with me. He told me that he had type 1 diabetes, a lifelong disease. He knew that if he did not take care of himself or was irresponsible, he might die. Despite all of that, he was not worried about his disease, but about the cost of the drugs. He was worried about that because those drugs cost his parents a lot of money. In a country as rich as ours, that makes no sense. While the Liberals and Conservatives focused on defending the interests of pharmaceutical companies, we in the NDP were fighting for this boy. We were fighting to help his parents have access to free diabetes drugs. What we in the NDP want is more money in people's pockets and less money in the coffers of big pharma. When I think about what free diabetes medication and devices will mean, I think about Scott and Rosemary. Scott is Rosemary's dad. Scott and his partner found out that their daughter, Rosemary, had type 1 diabetes at a year old. She had to be airlifted from New Brunswick to Halifax, and in the hospital, she received life-saving treatment. I remember Scott sharing with me how worried he was about his daughter and how that meant they had to make sure she got the medication and the equipment she needed. Rosemary needs a continuous blood monitor and a pump to stay healthy, to stay alive, and it is a cost for the family. It is something Scott and his partner have to worry about. However, they are not just worried about the cost of that, but also worried about what it means for Rosemary. When she grows up, she will always have to worry about affording this medication. It is not going to go away; it is a lifelong illness. They are worried that she might not make choices to pursue her dreams but that she might instead make choices to find the right job that has the right coverage so that she can stay alive, and they do not want her to worry about that. I asked Scott what it would mean for him and for his daughter Rosemary if we were able to make sure that she had free diabetes medication and devices. He said that it not only would mean lifting the pressure off him and his partner, as they would not have to worry about the cost, but also would mean that their daughter would have a brighter future. She would not have to worry about the cost of the medication and the devices she needs to stay alive. It would be life-changing for the family now and for the future. That is what we are fighting for. I think about Linda whom I met in Port Moody—Coquitlam. On the other end of the spectrum, Linda has lived her whole life with type 1 diabetes. She is retired now, but she was diagnosed in her 20s. She has had type 1 diabetes for over 40 years. She was going through her costs, and at many times in her life, she did not have the best coverage, so it probably cost her a lot more, but she did not have those records. However, as a retired person with some coverage and with some provincial programs available to her, she is spending about $3,000 a year for the medication and the devices she needs. For her, over a lifetime, she figures that, at a minimum, and it is probably a lot more, she has spent over $120,000 just to stay alive. Again, I think about people saying that this is not worth it. To Linda, it is worth it. To Rosemary, it is worth it. This would take away the pressure and the worry. It would mean that people would not be spending money out-of-pocket just to live. I will talk about what free birth control would mean. Again, this is to Conservatives who say that this does not matter, but to Linda and to Rosemary it matters. When we talk about free birth control, while the Liberals have been in power, access to birth control or access to the right to choose has gone down. It has become more and more difficult, particularly in the Atlantic provinces where clinics have shut down. We know that the right to choose is fundamental, but access to that right is just as fundamental, and we know that it has been more difficult. The Conservatives have been on a campaign to attack women's rights by bringing in motions that attack women's rights to choose, by supporting rallies that attack women's rights choose and by blocking free birth control. However, New Democrats have been very clear that we want to defend not only women's rights, but also access to those rights. It is fundamental to acknowledge that free birth control means reinforcing and strengthening the right to choose by giving more access to that right, which is fundamentally meaningful. I will close by thanking everyone who made this possible. A particular thanks to my health critics, both the previous health critic, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, and the current health critic, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. I thank all the health coalition activists and all the labour activists who made this possible today. It is a historic day for Canadians when we put the needs of Canadians ahead of big pharma. We say that Canadians deserve a health care system that truly covers them from head to toe, including universal pharmacare for all.

1554 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 1:43:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the NDP for his intervention today. More importantly, I thank him and our NDP colleagues for being adults in the room and for working with the government to bring forward meaningful legislation. Although I get laughs from across the way, we see this quite a bit, where it is NDP members who are actually helping to make meaningful changes. They have come to this chamber with the objective of improving the lives of Canadians, and I think that needs to be applauded, despite the fact that, in theory, it is what we are all supposed to be doing here. We have been hearing all day, and indeed, every time this debate has been going on, from Conservatives, that this would not have a big impact on Canadians, that it would not make a big difference because so many people are already covered and that what we are seeing through this legislation would not really do much for Canadians. I completely disagree with that. I would like to hear the leader of the NDP's thoughts on that.

184 words

Mr. Jagmeet Singh

Jun/3/24 1:44:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, although New Democrats always want to ensure that we are working toward improving the lives of people, we had to fight hard for this. This was not something that came on its own. We have to acknowledge that both Liberals and Conservatives initially voted against pharmacare when we first presented it. However, we were able to force the government to move forward now. In terms of the question, particularly the Conservatives' critique, I have given concrete stories about particular people who would directly benefit from this. When we think about the potential of this bill's massive impact, for birth control, nine million women in our country would receive access to free birth control. My colleague worked at a women's clinic, and on the days they provided access to contraceptives, or birth control, there would be lineups for hours. People waited to get access to that free birth control medication and ended up leaving, often without getting access, because there was so much demand. We know that with the cost of living as high as it is, this would be a meaningful reduction in the cost of living. It would save money for women who need access to this medication, and it would also provide them with meaningful access to choice. For the nearly four million people living with diabetes, this would fundamentally to save them money. People who have coverage often do not have complete coverage and still have to spend money out-of-pocket. Therefore, yes; this would save money and would save lives for millions of Canadians. It is meaningful, and I reject the Conservative claim that this would not be good for people.

280 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/3/24 1:46:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the House recognized Quebec as a nation. Through a unanimous vote in its National Assembly, Quebec is calling for a right to opt out with full compensation to improve its own program, which it has been administering for 30 years. Does the leader of the NDP agree with the Quebec National Assembly?

54 words

Mr. Jagmeet Singh

Jun/3/24 1:46:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the offer today is for all Canadians and all Quebeckers. We want to give them free contraceptives. That will really help women in Quebec. I know that this is going to be costly, but there is a great need for it. It is the same thing for diabetes medication. We want to provide free drugs and medical devices. That will help people in Quebec. What we want to do is work together with the provinces and Quebec. We want people in Quebec to get the same coverage as people in the rest of Canada. For me, it is unacceptable to have free diabetes medication in Ontario but not in Quebec. I will not accept a situation where Nova Scotians get free medication but Quebeckers do not. Here is what we want to do. We want to create a situation where everyone across the country has access to free medication. That includes Quebec.

154 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 323