Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable colleagues, I was not planning on speaking on this bill because I was quite convinced that our critic, Senator Seidman, would do a remarkable job, and she indeed did that just now. However, Senator Simons drew me into this debate last week during her speech on this topic. Quite frankly, colleagues, I would have preferred not to dignify the senator’s comments with a response, but I feel compelled to correct the record as she twisted my words and my position on something that carries very deep significance to me.

Since I am already on my feet, I will take the opportunity to share some of my thoughts on this newest piece of bad legislation coming from this NDP-Liberal government.

In her speech on June 12, Senator Simons quoted me quoting The Washington Post article about the fact that the Taliban had banned birth control in Afghanistan. For the record, I am going to repeat the quote from The Washington Post as it was powerful, and I stand by my words in their entirety. This was the quote:

Because of their diminishing educational and economic prospects, women and girls are increasingly forced into early marriage, with families resorting to selling their elementary-school-aged daughters to put food on the table. As many as 9 of every 10 of these child brides will experience gender-based violence, and many will be placed at further risk because of Taliban-imposed obstacles to health-care access. Today in Afghanistan, one woman dies every two hours during childbirth, and birth control has been banned. These conditions exacerbate the grave humanitarian crisis in a country full of war widows.

Colleagues, all of this behaviour is despicable and reprehensible. It is cruel and dehumanizing. It should not be.

Yet, in an incredible display of intellectual dishonesty, Senator Simons twisted this quotation and misrepresented my position when she stated the following:

. . . I think it is far more revolutionary that this plan will cover birth control, including the pill, the patch, the implant and the IUD, as well as emergency “morning-after pills” such as Plan B.

In the Senate just last week, Senator Don Plett himself spoke with considerable passion on the need for access to contraception. He quoted a Washington Post piece which explained that one of the ways the Taliban was oppressing woman in Afghanistan was by banning birth control.

I had not realized that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate was such an outspoken and stalwart advocate for reproductive choice for women. However, I am grateful that he raised his voice — and loudly — to support a woman’s right to control her own body and fertility.

Colleagues, everyone who has been here for longer than one week knows my personal convictions on the sanctity of life — that it extends from conception to natural death. Having said that, I am also respectful of other people’s right to their convictions and opinions, including those of Senator Simons’.

Yet, in an incredible display of disrespect, Senator Simons used a quotation from my speech — where I was denouncing the vile actions of the Taliban towards women and girls in Afghanistan — to suggest that I was supportive of terminating a pregnancy by utilizing what is commonly known as morning-after pills.

For a former journalist, this either displays a shocking level of ignorance about the parameters of one of the most contentious public policy debates in the last century or reveals an alarming lack of concern for an honest representation of facts. Either way, it is troubling.

However, there is one interesting thing about Senator Simons’ speech. As usual, she will be supporting Justin Trudeau, against the wishes of the Alberta government. However, on this bill, at least we know where she stands from the start of the debate. We will not have to listen to her long speeches about why she is unsure about which way to vote and watch the drama unfold as she gnashes her teeth, feigning anxiety and uncertainty about whether she will support the people of Alberta, before finally voting with Justin Trudeau.

You may recall that in her speech, Senator Simons attacked the Alberta government for its decision to refuse to participate in the NDP-Liberal pharmacare plan. She even concocted a conspiracy theory that to be opposed to Bill C-64 somehow aligns you with some right-wing ideology about women.

I am sure that would be news to the Quebec National Assembly, which unanimously voted to denounce Bill C-64. We have a number of Quebec senators. I’m wondering how they will vote on Bill C-64.

Once again, we can see from some politicians around here that the “Ottawa knows best” approach is alive and well. They are ready to use any argument, even a far-fetched one, to attack the provinces that are ready to defend their rights: “You don’t agree with the federal government invading your jurisdiction? It is because you hate women.”

Senator Simons is a good example of those NDP-Liberal politicians who are so quick to use the parts of the Constitution that they cherish, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but are quick to dismiss other parts, such as sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act on the separation of powers.

Any first-year law student will tell you that health care is a provincial matter, that it is an exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

So why is the Trudeau government getting involved in this? Did any of the provinces ask for this? No, not one of them did. They all said they would prefer more money for health care. Did a majority of Canadians ask for this? No. They also want more money for health care.

We all know the answer: It is the NDP that wanted pharmacare. With their sagging polling numbers, they needed a spark — something, anything.

And Justin Trudeau was ready to do exactly that — anything — to keep power, even the things that the Liberal Party has fought against for years. This NDP-Liberal coalition and their supporters have decided to throw the Constitution on the side, once again, and create a new program in an area that is exclusively provincial jurisdiction.

Of course, the provinces don’t want that. They know full well how this movie will go: The federal government will impose conditions, promising to pay for the program. Then, when costs balloon, it will no longer cover its share and will leave the provinces holding the buck. This is the same thing it did with health care and the same thing it is already starting to do with child care.

This idea that the federal government has to get involved in provincial jurisdictions is the biggest threat not only to the federal treasury but to the unity of our federation. However, the superiority complex of the NDP-Liberals vis-à-vis the provinces knows no bounds. The leader of the NDP wrote to Quebec’s health minister, asking for a meeting so that he could school him about the benefits of a pharmacare system. He did that, even though Quebec has a system where everyone has been insured since 1996.

Peter Julian said in his speech in the House of Commons on April 16, 2024, “It is no secret that Quebec’s current system is not working. People are falling through the cracks.” This is a politician from British Columbia, House leader of a party with one elected member in Quebec who has decided he knows what’s best for Quebecers.

Senator Simons is in good company when she pretends that she knows better than the Alberta government what is good for Albertans. I find it strange that the same people who say that senators should not oppose legislation adopted by the House of Commons because it was adopted by elected officials don’t have any problem opposing legislation voted through by elected officials in their own provinces. We can see this attitude that provincial governments and elected members are somehow inferior to their Ottawa counterparts.

They are not. Our federation is not constructed that way. Provinces are the masters in their own jurisdictions, such as health, which includes pharmacare. If there is a place in Ottawa where that constitutional reality should be not only understood but defended, it is here in the Senate.

Both Quebec and Alberta have indicated that they will not participate in any plan, and should the NDP-Liberal program be implemented, they expect full compensation.

I find it worrisome that the Trudeau government refuses to confirm that any province that refuses to take part in their scheme would be fully compensated.

I want to remind you, colleagues, that our role as senators includes the protection of provincial rights. I hope that all senators will keep that in mind when they make up their minds on Bill C-64. There is no place for simplistic arguments and conspiracy theories in our analysis of the positions of the various stakeholders.

This bill is about to be sent to committee. I hope that our Social Affairs Committee will shed some light on each of the provinces’ positions on the bill and on the Trudeau government’s commitment to accept giving full compensation in case of opting out, and that members of the committee will respect their duty as defenders of provincial rights.

I also hope we will get answers on this question: What is the federal government trying to achieve with Bill C-64? Because as I said, no one except the NDP wanted this bill. So why introduce it, other than just to make Jagmeet Singh happy and keep him onside? One theory is that there is no other reason. This is what I would call “the theory of the nothing burger.”

A lot of people have claimed this is not a pharmacare plan; it is only a plan to have conversations with the provinces about the federal government covering some of the cost for some medications for diabetes and some contraceptives. In other words, this bill is a PR exercise. It would be the legislative equivalent of the health minister inviting his provincial and territorial counterparts for a conference to discuss an issue with the knowledge that something may or may not happen.

Considering the political circumstances surrounding the birth of this legislation, I think these skeptics may be right. You have two parties with bad polling numbers trying to come up with an idea, any idea, to move the needle. They don’t have the money to fund a big program, but they have to show something sexy enough to make people believe something will change. But they must be careful — too much change would scare people. So they come up with a bill so vague that it does not mean anything, but it means everything. They hope that the radicals will see the promised revolution, while everyone else stays asleep, thinking that nothing will happen to them.

The brains behind this PR stunt thought they could add a kicker: the idea of including contraceptives is clearly designed for women, who are leaving the Justin train in droves.

So, this was the plan: introduce a bill that does not commit you to anything other than to more talks with the provinces, don’t budget anything yet, prepare a list of what would be covered but with the caveat that this may change. The government put that list on Canada.ca, which creates hope for Canadians. Canadians will say, “Well, these are the medications that are going to be covered.” But then some people will ask, “Well, why not this? Why not that?”

For example, senators will know that Ozempic is not on the list. The government’s answer to this is, “Hey, this is not the final list.” According to the theory of the nothing burger, the Liberals would dance around the issue until the next election, blaming the provincial Conservative governments for the delay. This way, they don’t touch the plans that the large majority of Canadians use, and they will use the issue for their election platform in 2025.

This bill would be another of those “Seinfeld” bills that the Trudeau government is so fond of — a bill about nothing, a nothing burger. Or it may be more than this — and this is where it becomes dangerous. This is the theory of the Trojan Horse.

The NDP-Liberal deal said that the two parties would be “continuing progress towards a universal national pharmacare program by passing a Canada Pharmacare Act . . . .” So, the ultimate goal would be this universal program. Liberal MP Chandra Arya said in his speech in the House that Bill C-64 is “. . . a new chapter in our social contract” — nothing less. So maybe it is a big thing, but what exactly?

Over 97% of Canadians are already eligible for some form of prescription drug coverage, so there are about 1.1 million Canadians without any coverage for pharmacare. Why didn’t the government focus on offering coverage to those 1.1 million Canadians?

Compare this to the over 27 million Canadians who rely on privately administered workplace plans. Are they to scrap their plans altogether? What happens to those 27 million Canadians who already have a plan?

As usual, the Trudeau government is speaking from both sides of its mouth. Parliamentary Secretary Mark Gerretsen said:

This is about accepting, realizing and coming to the conclusion that we all deserve the exact same level of coverage, regardless of who we are, where we work or what our income is.

So for him, there would no longer be any private plan — we would all have the same coverage. But wait: Minister Holland, from the same government, said:

. . . the 70% to 80% or so of Canadians who have private insurance can be at least somewhat reassured that they would not lose private coverage.

But wait again. The government designated sponsor of the bill in the Senate, Senator Kim Pate, issued a press release saying that Bill C-64 reflects a step-by-step process and that:

Incremental expansion of coverage from contraceptive and diabetes medication toward a full public, universal pharmacare system will require the buying power of a single-payer system purchasing medications for 40 million Canadians through processes that are evidence-based and publicly accountable. . . .

So, it is clear for the sponsor — the ultimate goal is to strip the 27 million Canadians who have private plans of their coverage. Let me read again from the press release:

“We start by insisting that access to pharmacare does not vary from one person to the next,” said Senate sponsor of Bill C-64, Kim Pate. “Pharmacare must remedy Canada’s patchwork of literally thousands of independent private and public drug plans. It must be a cohesive system that brings together and ensures Canada’s purchasing power when negotiating prices and supply guarantees with multinational pharmaceutical companies. It must support individual households and employers by relieving them of the costs of drug coverage.”

Earlier this month, the co-leader of the NDP-Liberal coalition said:

We believe in a universal single-payer program. We included that language in the bill. This bill isn’t perfect, but this bill does lay the foundation.

Let me then quote The Hill Times of June 8:

“The [bill’s] language is fatally flawed because of its ambiguity,” said Dr. Steve Morgan, a professor at the University of British Columbia and a well-known pharmacare expert who has advocated for a single-payer program for many years. “[Pharmaceuticals are] a critical and massive component in the health-care system, and yet this legislation doesn’t define terms such as what does ‘single payer’ mean? What does ‘universal’ mean? What does ‘first dollar’ mean? What does ‘public’ mean?”

None of those terms are defined in the legislation, which is an outcome of the supply-and-confidence agreement between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. Instead, definitions are limited to the following: “Indigenous Peoples,” “Minister,” “pharmacare,” and “pharmaceutical product.”

Why did the government come up with such vague legislation? Why do some supporters say this is the first step of a complete overhaul of how medicine is distributed in Canada, while the minister keeps on telling us, “Move on; nothing to see here”?

You would think that facing such uncertainty about the impact of such an important bill as Bill C-64, the government would have clarified its intentions during House committee proceedings, but, no, it refused amendments to clarify what would happen to private coverage. Isn’t it strange — a government that insists that the program should be universal but refuses to define the term?

I hope that when the bill comes back for third reading, this will be clarified. Otherwise, we will have to conclude that Bill C-64 is indeed a Trojan Horse, and that the ultimate goal of the government is what Senator Pate and Jagmeet Singh stated: to get rid of all private coverage to the benefit of one single government-run program.

If that is the plan, the government should have the courage to say so. If Mark Holland wants to annul all the collective agreements whereby unions and their members obtained superior coverage for drugs, then he should have the courage to say so. I fully hope that Senator Yussuff would see to it that he does.

The Liberals should also have the courage to tell us the cost of their pharmacare plan. As usual, the Trudeau government is gaslighting Canadians on the costs of its measures. Mark Holland said:

We can’t afford this to be a massively expensive program. We’re not in a time where the fiscal framework can absorb massive costs. And so that absolutely is a consideration . . . .

In October 2023, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that a single-payer universal drug plan would cost federal and provincial governments $11.2 billion in the first year and $13.4 billion in five years. So what is it? Is $11 billion no longer considered a massive cost to this government, or is Minister Holland hiding the truth? Once again, this is a question for our committee.

Finally, I hope the committee will clarify what coverage Canadians will have once we have a single national program. On March 3, expert Emmanuelle Faubert wrote in the National Post that if coverage similar to Quebec’s public drug insurance plan were to be extended across the country, the coverage quality of 21.5 million Canadians would be jeopardized if a government monopoly were to be imposed, and a loss of coverage could mean a loss of access to drugs.

I remind you that even the supporters of Bill C-64 admit that the Quebec model is too expensive. Our committee and our Senate should take a careful look at what happened in New Zealand, where drugs are no longer available due to the constraints of the public plan. Is this what would be in store for Canadians with Bill C-64: more money, less choice and inferior coverage? Is that what is in this Trojan Horse?

In conclusion, colleagues, we have in front of us a badly written bill for which the objectives remain unclear. Is this a “nothingburger” or is this a Trojan Horse that will reduce the existing coverage that 21 million to 27 million Canadians enjoy today? We don’t know. The government, in their usual format, rushed this bill in the House, with the committee having only 10 hours of witness testimony and the minister saying one thing one day and something contrary another day.

Canadians are fed up with their health care system. Why should we impose a similar single-payer pharmacare system with lack of choice, rationing of care and worse outcomes? Former president Ronald Reagan famously said, “. . . the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.” I would say that just as terrifying are the words, “I’m Justin Trudeau, and I’m going to set up a new program to replace what you have now.”

We need to know where the government is going with this, and the committee has a lot of work to do on this bill. I would imagine that Senator Pate will have the same interest as me in clarifying what Bill C-64 is all about because — so far — this is what we have with Bill C-64: We don’t know what will be covered. We don’t know who will be covered. We don’t know how coverage will be delivered. We don’t know how much this will cost. Yet the government wants us to just rush this through.

We don’t know the impact on the 97% of Canadians who already have pharmacare. I sincerely hope our Senate committee will obtain the answers from the government. I don’t think Canadians have any more faith in Justin Trudeau and his incompetent ministers. The “trust me” message from Minister Holland on this bill is not acceptable.

Thank you.