SoVote

Jun/3/24 6:11:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our earpieces are not working, because I could not hear any of the heckling on this side of the floor to which the member opposite was referring.

29 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/3/24 6:11:19 p.m.
Watch

I did not react to it, but yes, there was heckling. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

18 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Jun/3/24 6:11:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There is not only heckling but also unnecessary interruption. I will use my remaining time to talk about diabetes and those living with diabetes. Diabetes is a disease with no cure. There is a treatment, and it is thanks to Canadian science, which is something that our government supports. Canadian scientist Frederick Banting and his team came up with an interim solution, I suppose we could call it; it is a treatment for diabetes that allows diabetics to live. Without it, diabetics would not have the opportunity to live fulfilling lives, but we still need to fight for a cure. Before we get there, we should also ensure that we reduce inequality and inequities in the populations impacted by diabetes. There is a really interesting infographic from the Public Health Agency of Canada. Anybody who is watching this debate might be interested in how diabetes and inequality intersect in Canada. I was actually very surprised to learn that diabetes and employment status are related; there is a positive correlation between them. When people are employed, they are less likely to suffer from diabetes and live with diabetes. When people are permanently unable to work, they are more likely to have diabetes, which means that they naturally have a lower income. It is the same for education level, surprisingly. Almost 10% of those individuals with less than a high school education will have diabetes or prediabetes throughout their life; for university graduates, that goes down to between 3.5% and 6.1%. There is also a positive relationship within income quintiles. All five income quintiles are associated with a positive relationship. As income goes up, people are less likely to have diabetes. Therefore, providing folks living with diabetes with free access to medication, to insulin and to supports for managing their illness is also an affordability measure that would make a difference for a lot of Canadians. Diabetes also affects people disproportionately in different categories. There are complex social and environmental behavioural factors that result in inequalities in the burden of diabetes between certain populations in Canada. The prevalence of diabetes is 2.3% higher among South Asian Canadians, and it is 2.1% higher among Black adults. For indigenous adults, the prevalence of diabetes is similarly staggering, at 1.9% higher for first nations Canadians living off reserve. Inequities experienced by first nations, Inuit and Métis populations are a direct result of colonial policies and practices that included massive forced relocation, loss of lands, creation of the reserve system, banning of indigenous languages and cultural practices, and the creation of the harmful residential school system. Unaddressed intergenerational trauma adds to the ongoing challenges faced by indigenous peoples, and providing them with a reliable and affordable treatment for diabetes would support affordability. This would also reduce the number of times people with diabetes have to access health care as a result of their illness. People with diabetes are more at risk of all sorts of life-changing health crises, such as a heart attack or stroke, kidney failure, blindness and amputation. At this very moment, there are about 3.7 million Canadians, or 9.4% of our population, who have been diagnosed and have to manage their condition for their entire life. If members can believe it, in 2015, 25% of Canadians with diabetes indicated that they followed their treatments to a T, but they were affected by cost; in some cases, those Canadians were rationing medications to save money. Therefore, a quarter of the people who are following their treatments are affected by cost. There are other Canadians who are undiagnosed, and there are Canadians who are not following their treatments. We need to make sure that they live a healthy and fulfilled life, and one way to do that is to ensure that they have access to this vital medication. About one out of three people is living with diabetes or prediabetes today in Canada, and rates of diabetes are ever rising. It is estimated that, by 2028, over 13 million Canadians, or 32% of the population, will have diabetes or prediabetes. Through Bill C-64 and the work of the national framework for diabetes, we can improve aspects of preventative care as well. We can do this through information sharing and knowledge transfer, while also ensuring that those living with diabetes have access to insulin and other diabetes medications. This is a cost-saving endeavour. The Conservatives have continually referred to this as a spending program, as if it would not be invested directly in the health of Canadians. Not only would it be invested in their long-term health outcomes, but it would also be invested directly in their affordability. It would support affordability, and, as I pointed out, that is something that is positively correlated with other risk factors. We introduced the national framework for diabetes in 2022 to align multisectoral efforts to reduce the impact of diabetes in Canada. The framework comprises about six interdependent and interconnected components that represent the range of areas where opportunities to advance efforts on diabetes could and will be beneficial. Bill C-64 would support people living with diabetes, whether through improving access to the medications they need or giving them the tools they need to have a better quality of life in Canada. We are here for Canadians. Our plan to provide universal coverage for contraception and diabetes medications would be transformative, and I still have faith that the Conservatives will see the light and recognize that this is a very popular and worthwhile endeavour. We should all get behind national pharmacare for Canadians.

942 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Jun/3/24 6:17:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to raise to the attention of the House a really important matter that happened, and I am sure that I can have unanimous consent. We know the important role that pages play in the House of Commons to help support us. One of the annual traditions here in the House of Commons has been the actual ability to have a soccer game among pages and MPs, and last week—

82 words

Pages

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/3/24 6:17:50 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the hon. member that the question of props is an issue, so I would invite the member not to handle a prop.

26 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Jun/3/24 6:18:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be very quick, but I just want to recognize that there is an annual game played among MPs and pages. It is a long-standing tradition, and the game took place last week. I am pleased to present the fact that the— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

52 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/3/24 6:18:25 p.m.
Watch

That would be more in the nature of a member's statement than a point of order. The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has the floor.

29 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Jun/3/24 6:18:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a national drug program or pharmacare program would be a great idea if we were not a trillion dollars in the hole. As a consequence of being so in debt, taxes are going up and driving our doctors out of the country. How is a pharmacare program going to help people who do not even have a doctor to provide a prescription and have no way of getting a prescription? How is the government going to decide who gets the medicine when there is a drug shortage, as we have seen recently with diabetes? How are they going to decide who lives and dies?

106 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Jun/3/24 6:19:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is beyond the pale that Conservatives continue to refer to a national pharmacare plan as an expenditure that we just cannot afford. It is so unfortunate. This is an affordability measure. It is a way to support Canadians who are vulnerable. It is a proven method to ensure that vulnerable, lower-income and disproportionately impacted Canadians will receive the financial support they need. There are Canadians living in period poverty, who cannot access contraception and who just simply do not have regular access to diabetes medications. A government is required to be able to do many complicated things simultaneously. We need to address the doctor shortage. We need to meet Canadians where they are and ensure they have the medications that they deserve and that they need in order to live full and fulfilled lives.

138 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/3/24 6:20:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He just responded to the Conservatives by saying that this money needs to be spent to provide a service. I agree with him. However, we have to be efficient. To be efficient, we should entrust this money to the people who are competent. A system already exists in Quebec. My colleague is well aware of it. I am going to give him a mission to fulfill within his party, his government. He needs to convince his caucus and the people who run it to transfer the money to Quebec, unconditionally. I can assure the House that the Quebec government will get the job done on health care because that falls within its jurisdiction.

122 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Jun/3/24 6:21:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but it is always the same story with the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc members always say that in Canada, the provincial government, in this case Quebec, is wholly responsible for the health care system. In actual fact, that is the case until the bill arrives and it is time to pay for the health care system. Canada's health care system is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments. We need only think of the health care provided at the regional level in my riding. It is so important that we find solutions together.

110 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Jun/3/24 6:22:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we hear from the Conservative caucus about the costs of pharmacare. The member spoke about how this is needed for an affordability measure, but we have not heard about how national single-payer pharmacare saves money. The Parliamentary Budget Officer tabled a report saying that $1.4 billion would be saved because national single-payer pharmacare gives governments the negotiating and bargaining power to drive down drug costs. Therefore, it is not surprising to see Conservatives oppose it when their friends, the lobbyists, the CEOs and big pharma keep saying the same things that they do. Can the member speak to how Conservatives are constantly looking out for the corporations at the very top instead of everyday Canadians who are struggling to pay for essential medications?

128 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Jun/3/24 6:23:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. This is not only a cost-savings measure for the government, the health care system or people who live with diabetes or require contraception, but it is also a way to save money within the system. When Canadians stick to their regimen and take their diabetes medication, they will visit the hospital less often. We want to make sure not only that they live healthy and fulfilled lives but also that we save money in the health care system. However, it is the case again that Conservatives are really only here for the lobbyists and never for everyday people—

107 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/3/24 6:24:04 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

10 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Jun/3/24 6:24:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am aware that there will be about three minutes for my speech. I am not sure if the time carries forward or whether we are done debate, but if it does I will be splitting my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. It is my pleasure to rise in this House. I want to put a little context around the pharmacare situation and, really, the economy in general. The future Liberal leader Mark Carney said that it is impossible to redistribute what one does not have. That is the very scenario that we find ourselves in. Over the last nine years, we have experienced incredible fiscal and monetary, I might add, mismanagement of our economy. When the Liberals took the reins of power nine years ago, we had a balanced budget and we had a low GDP-to-debt ratio. Now, some nine years later, we have one of the worst debt-to-GDP ratios. We are looking at about 43%, in terms of debt-to-GDP ratio, which is shocking because the finance minister clearly said in 2022 that the government has a “fiscal anchor”, a line it shall not cross, and that the debt-to-GDP ratio would not increase. Then what did it do? It went up. According to the PBO, who we heard from today, it is actually going to go up the next two years. Speaking of the PBO, I am not sure if anyone caught this because it was only audio, unfortunately, but members will not believe what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. He was getting challenged by Liberals for the error he made with respect to the calculation of the carbon tax, and what he said is that he actually knows his numbers are right because he has the numbers in front of him, the same numbers that the Liberals would not release to the public. It is incredible. The PBO came out and said that he has their analysis, but he just cannot share it because the Liberals will not share it. They have a carbon tax analysis that shows six out of 10 Canadians pay more in carbon tax than they get back in rebate. That being said, I will just sum up my three minutes with this comment from the great Margaret Thatcher. She said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.” We have hit that point. We are now paying more in interest than we are in health care transfers. Let us have a little common sense, the government cannot redistribute what it does not have. An obsession with redistribution to the extent that it is no longer focusing on growth will hurt everyone, most notably the most vulnerable.

469 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/3/24 6:27:16 p.m.
Watch

It being 6:27 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, May 22, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

92 words