So V ote

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

May/30/24 10:31:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River is always thoughtful here and mindful of the shortfalls of things the government puts forward. There are a couple of things, though, to think about. At the health committee, we had two of Canada's experts, Drs. Morgan and Gagnon, and as the member well knows, they had no input into but much criticism about this bill. It related to the fact that it would not create a national, universal, single-payer, first-dollar pharmacare system. I heard them say that and I know the member across heard them say that as well. The other criticism we heard clearly is that the newly formed Canadian drug agency will have absolutely no oversight, especially from the point of view of an Auditor General's audit, with respect to its activities. We know on behalf of Canadians that at the current time, the time from application to approval for a drug in Canada is one of the longest among the OECD countries. I would appreciate my hon. colleague's comments with respect to those two things.

184 words

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

May/30/24 8:42:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with respect to all Canadians such as physicians, nurse practitioners and pharmacists who are listening and who are out there prescribing medications this evening, I find it fascinating that the member would be suggesting that their appropriateness is actually inappropriate and that we need the government now to tell physicians what to prescribe. Think about someone with hypertension, sitting in their family doctor's office if they are fortunate enough not to be one of the seven million people without a family doctor. What is the family doctor going to do? Are they going to call the “1-800-who-cares” phone number provided by the people who cannot even get them a passport, and wait on hold while they say which medication should be prescribed? I find that to be an absolutely terrifying prospect for Canada's incredibly well-trained frontline prescribers in this country who have the independent ability to make those decisions, the best decisions on behalf of the patients, many of whom they have known for an incredibly long time. Maybe the member could answer this: Would they now be setting up a 1-800 number for doctors to ask which medication should be prescribed? Perhaps, as I mentioned, they could call it “1-800-who-cares”.

217 words

May/30/24 6:40:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, sometimes people liken getting a group of doctors angry to getting a bunch of bees angry, in the sense that if we make one mad, they all want to sting us. That interesting image would hold true in this case. How do we decide things when a group of experts get in a room? First of all, we need to pick a group of experts, which we had some ideas on at committee. They were rejected by the costly coalition. The other part of it is asking, what is the best insulin? What is the best medication, the pills, available to treat diabetes? Why is Ozempic not here? How do we make those pharmacoeconomic decisions when we know that some medications are incredibly cheap but not as effective as the more expensive medications? Who is going to be the final arbiter of that decision-making? I thank my hon. colleague for the question, because I think it is a very important one. Canadians need to understand that the lists published on Canada.ca are simply lists and are not worth the paper they are printed on.

188 words

May/29/24 11:34:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, oddly enough, I did have a pain clinic for 15 years, and that is not true. Anyway, that being said, did Fair Price Pharma import 15 kilograms of heroin into Canada in November 2021?

36 words

May/29/24 8:05:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, could the minister confirm how many former B.C. health officials have gone on to found a pharmaceutical company aimed at drug dealing?

25 words

May/29/24 8:03:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that Perry Kendall is the founder of Fair Price Pharma?

16 words

May/29/24 8:02:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell Canadians how much heroin Fair Price Pharma has imported into Canada?

17 words

May/29/24 8:01:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, could the minister confirm or deny that Fair Price Pharma has an importation licence for heroin?

18 words

May/29/24 8:01:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, could the minister confirm or deny if this company, Fair Price Pharma, has a dealer's licence for heroin?

21 words

Context: House Hansard - 315 - May/22/24

May/29/24 8:01:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain to Canadians what the company called Fair Price Pharma is?

16 words

Context: House Hansard - 300 - Apr/16/24

May/22/24 7:41:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of democracy and common-sense Conservatives here in the House of Commons. What we see over and over again, presented by the costly coalition, are failures: failed plans, failed opportunities and a failure for Canadians. It is very sad to see a government in the last throes of its mandate, which has been here for nine incredibly long and difficult years on the backs of Canadians. We have a failed dental care plan and a failed opioid experiment. Sadly, we have a failing health care system, which pains me to no end. Now we have a failed pharmacare pamphlet. Why do we call it a pamphlet? It is because it promises to potentially do something, when, in essence, it is doing absolutely nothing. There is nothing here. It is another photo op. When I am back home on our break week to go and visit those who have supported us and those who perhaps have not, people ask me about this great pharmacare program, wondering when they can get their free medications. I have to explain to them that what we see is a photo opportunity to announce a program that has to go a consultative route with an expert panel. Sadly, another government agency then has to be created. Already, my colleague from Calgary Shepard rightly spoke about the numerous agencies that are created and the opportunities that have been lost. Then there also have to be consultations with the provinces to see if this is something that fits into their framework, since they deliver health care and are responsible for that delivery. We continue to see this opportunity being lost because of the crazy spending and wacko politics we see across the aisle over and over. I spoke briefly about the failed dental care program. My colleague from the other part of the costly coalition wants to tout how many people in my riding might benefit from a dental care program. However, when we go out and speak to dentists, as I have done, we know this plan is so bad that dentists will not even sign on for it. I have spoken to every single dental association across the country. The Liberals are doing a bit of gaslighting, which we see over and over, when they talk about how many dental professionals have signed up. There are dental hygienists, who are independent from dentists. However, we know that Canadians want access to a dentist, much like they want a primary care provider in the health care system. The government also promised 7,500 doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners. On this side of the House, we know that is not in the purview of the federal government, but be that as it may, that is something it promised over there. We all know it has not delivered. In addition, the number of people who do not have access to primary care continues to climb. I know my colleague from Winnipeg Centre will get up and say, “Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth to say that this is not the purview of the federal government, but that of the provincial government, because I have heard him say it before.” The difficulty is that it is his government, his side of the House, in concert with the costly coalition, that promised to deliver 7,500 doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners. Therefore, when we see the system failing on the backs of the promises the Liberals continue to make, we know that they are continuing to fail Canadians. I talked briefly in my opening remarks about the opioid experiment, which is another failure. The NDP-Liberal coalition, for some reason, made that decision; we hope it will finally walk back on that and make it law to not continue these types of experiments. Interestingly enough, on behalf of Canadians, we know that there is reasonable evidence that the opioid epidemic that exists in North America was probably started because of access to OxyContin. Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family were successfully sued in the United States for their complicit nature in this epidemic that has existed. Because of that, we now have an opioid epidemic that is often related to fentanyl. The interesting question is this: How could a government believe that decriminalizing that drug could possibly fix this crisis that was started originally because of too much OxyContin being easily accessible? Doing so has meant adding more of it, and other drugs like it, such as hydromorphone, on the street; in this case, there is often so-called safe supply for zero cost. It is another failure the government has supported. It pains me to no end to have to talk about the failed and failing health care system. Certainly, the former president of the Canadian Medical Association, Katharine Smart, said it very concisely. She said we have a system that is now, sadly, on the brink of collapse. Why is it on the brink of collapse? As Canadians know, the entire health care system in our country is predicated on having access to primary care. This then gives us access to other services we need, other procedures, other laboratory tests and specialist care. When we do not have that access, several things happen. Someone does not get any access at all, their health suffers because of that and they give up; otherwise, they end up trying to access the system through episodic care, which is often related to visiting emergency rooms, and we know they are incredibly clogged up. At this point in the history of our great country, approximately seven million Canadians do not have access to primary care, because of the failure of the health care system on the promises, as I have already mentioned, of this costly coalition. What are the effects? We know these effects happen on an everyday basis in the ridings of every member of Parliament across the nation. We know that, incredibly sadly, people are dying while they are waiting for care in emergency rooms. We know that emergency rooms are clogged up for hours on end. There are many stories about people waiting 12 and 24 hours. The most atrocious story I have heard lately is the sad story of a gentleman who was a quadriplegic. He waited for innumerable hours in an emergency room, got bedsores and then chose MAID over trying to improve his health. When we hear these drastic and unfathomable stories of the health care system, we begin to wonder why an NDP-Liberal coalition wants to spend more and more money on health care. It wants to spend $1.5 billion, on this particular occasion, on contraceptives and diabetes medication. We see that the Liberals have failed at dental care and their opioid experiment; now they are failing at a health care plan and at pharmacare. We also understand that this is not a plan. This is like someone saying they built a mansion when they do not even own the land on which to build said mansion. It is a pamphlet, it is a photo opportunity, and it is going to be another failure, sadly, on behalf of Canadians who are already demanding their free medications. We know the plan the costly coalition created is many years down the road. We also know, because of the Liberals' desire to ram this piece of legislation through, that there are already studies planned in the health committee. We are finishing the study on opioids, which we know is a disaster. We are looking at breast cancer screening, which would help save the lives of many young women here in Canada. It is because of the ram-down-one's-throat nature of the motion on the bill that those studies will be missed. Do I believe that we need more time to study this in health committee? Yes, I do. I do not believe that having 10 hours of witnesses, when we have 10 to 20 witnesses who want to appear and talk about this, is going to be a significant problem. Therefore, I move: That the motion be amended by adding to paragraph (a) the following: “(vii) the Minister of Health and his officials be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than three hours.”

1402 words

Context: House Hansard - 300 - Apr/16/24

Apr/16/24 3:46:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting speech. Once again, it would appear that the Liberals are suffering from counting problems today. That being said, we have often heard today about the number of insulins covered on this fantasy pharmacare program proposed by the NDP-Liberal costly coalition. We know, clearly, that in British Columbia, on their formulary, there are 17 insulins covered, and on this program there are only nine. Again, we come back to the magical number of eight, which is how many insulins are not covered by this program. I thought I would give the answer to the member before there is difficulty answering the question, as there has been all day. I would also like to ask a question. For a cash-paying customer paying for birth control pills, how much would that be a month? Certainly the numbers are not adding up once again.

148 words

Context: House Hansard - 200 - May/18/23

Apr/16/24 11:19:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, hopefully today we will move into reality as opposed to the fantasyland that has been painted by the Minister of Health. When we look at it, the pharmacare program that is being introduced is really about the preservation of the costly coalition. We also know that Canadians are not going to be fooled by the foolishness that has been presented in the House this morning. We know that the other plan its members have is to clearly extend the date of an election so they can access their pensions. The worst state of being a politician one could possibly imagine is to be self-serving, when all of us who come to the House know we should be here for the benefit of Canadians. That is clearly not the case with the costly coalition members. Rather, it is about their preservation, which they have made very clear throughout Canada, which is an essential part of their ability to keep this inept government in power for as long as they have. That is the first part that Canadians, of course, are well aware of. The other thing that Canadians are well aware of is the state of coverage with respect to pharmacare. My Bloc Québécois colleagues are well aware that pharmacare falls squarely within provincial jurisdiction. We know that 97.2% of Canadians are already eligible for some form of prescription drug coverage, which is not some funny Conservative talking point. It comes from Stats Canada, CIHI, CLHIA and the Conference Board of Canada. Therefore, when we look at the numbers, it becomes very simple to understand that there is a gap of about 1.1 million Canadians who struggle without coverage for pharmacare. I think it is important to point that out because we are attempting to have an honest conversation here. We also know that the numbers of those who are uninsured have decreased precipitously since, for instance, the Ontario government introduced OHIP+. It is also interesting that the minister talked a bit about his historic meetings with all the provincial ministers of health, which I also chose to undertake myself. When I did, what those provincial ministers of health made clear was not the rubbish the federal minister brought forward, but that they in no way, shape or form want another large federal program dropped on their heads to fund, which, as I said in French, is clearly a provincial area of responsibility, the delivery of health care. Oddly enough, the federal Minister of Health himself pointed out that the delivery of health care is a provincial responsibility and not that of the federal government, despite the fact he continues to intervene in moving the responsibility from the provincial authority to the federal government. I did have an opportunity to mention this bill, and I would like to expand upon that. The bill would create another government agency, which is exactly what Canadians would like to have, more bureaucracy and more gatekeeping. It would create the Canadian drug agency, which would cost about $90 million to create and perhaps another $30 million or $35 million a year to continue to exist as time goes on. However, who worries about monetary policy? It is certainly not the NDP-Liberal coalition. It is also odd that the government posted on its Canada.ca website a list of drugs, diabetic drugs and contraceptives that may or may not represent what would actually be on the formulary in the future because we know it would be the responsibility of the Canadian drug agency, in consultation with provinces and other stakeholders, to create a formulary to be used. I think it is also important to point out that, if we are to have any faith whatsoever, which I personally do not, in the formulary that has been put out thus far, much to the chagrin of Canadians, it is rife with older medications, with no fees for pharmacists or the primary care provided by pharmacists to many Canadians because of the sad reduction in the number of family physicians. It is also worth noting, very specifically, that the blockbuster drug in treatment of diabetes in a generation, namely Ozempic, is not included. There is no surprise there. As I was saying, after the creation of the Canadian drug agency and a formulary, and after holding these consultations, the only consultations that have happened thus far, of course, are with the NDP costly coalition partners, which should not give Canadians any warming in their hearts. When we look at the other issues that are clearly brewing in Canada at the current time, Canadians know that the state of our beloved health care system has been under siege by the inept management of the NDP-Liberal coalition. We know that wait times have surged beyond what they have ever been in history. For instance, the wait time from seeing a family physician to a specialist to obtaining specialist-based treatment has increased 195% to a 27-week wait time. This is the longest it has been in three decades. Is this a system that Canadians should be proud of? The other disturbing statistic is that 6.5 million Canadians are without access to primary care. As time will march forward, as it always does, by 2030, in Ontario alone, the 2.3 million Ontarians currently without access will surge to four million Ontarians without access to primary care. It is very clear, even if this were a good pharmacare plan, which it clearly is not, that without access to primary care, there is really no way to get medications. I would suggest that there is a bit of a misguided nature here. The other difficulty that Canadians are also very aware of is that the newest medications, a class of medications called “biologics”, which account for 2% of claims, are now accounting for 30% of spending. Of course, none of these biologics are included on any of the proposed fantasyland formularies from the NDP-Liberal coalition. The other problem we have in our health care system is wait times from application to approval of medications to be on the formulary to the actual acceptance on 50% of public formularies, and we have the longest wait times in the world at 25 months for new life-saving therapies. A government should be seized with policy changes to improve the lack of bureaucratic control and the ability to change things that would be cost effective for Canadians, and indeed changes like this to make a government work more efficiently, which would actually not cost the government anything, it would cost Canadians nothing. However, what is the government doing? As I said previously, it is interfering with clear provincial jurisdiction and adding federated programs that in no way, shape or form could possibly reduce the cost for medications. The other reason, of course, is that the cost of these medications are already in a forum which allows all of the public plans to come together under a program called the “pCPA”, which already allows all public plans to negotiate for low prices for those medications. For the federal Minister of Health to suggest that this new plan would suddenly allow prices to drop precipitously is absolutely and categorically untrue. The other major issue is related to finances and the cost of living. When Canadians were asked what the major cause of their inability to afford their medications was, and I suspect my colleagues know very well what the answer to that question is, it was inflation. Yes, inflation is cited as the major cause of Canadians' inability to afford their prescription medications. Why do we have 40-year high inflation? Well, of course, it is because of the costly coalition of the NDP and Liberals. We know that the chance of a young Canadian now owning their own home is almost zero. It is a dream that is almost dead because of the NDP-Liberal coalition's incompetence. We also know that, more than ever, Canadians are turning to food banks to enable themselves to feed their families. Two million Canadians a month, very sadly, are having to go to food banks, and what do we see? We are seeing more large federal government spending in what David Dodge called last evening “likely to be the worst budget” announcement in the history of this country. We are waiting for more of these terrible budget announcements today, in which we will see another estimated $40 billion of deficit spending. On top of that, we know that the $1.2-trillion debt that the NDP-Liberal coalition has coffered together, more than all Canadian governments in history combined, is costing more now to service than we are spending on health care. That is an incredibly sad state of affairs. I would suggest that it is one that Canadians are paying very close attention to. We also know that simply saving for a down payment for a house is now taking 25 years, when the Canadian dream would be that those 25 years would allow us to pay a mortgage, not simply to save for the down payment. Canadians are suffering more and more with their mental health. We also know that the Liberal government had committed $4.5 billion to the Canada mental health transfer, and not one penny of that has been transferred. That is a very sad state of affairs, when one-quarter to one-third of all Canadians are currently suffering with mental health issues, and it is believed that 50% of those are suffering with inadequate treatment. The $4.5 billion could go a long way to help treat the mental health of Canadians. This NDP-Liberal coalition has had a multitude of failures, and they are worth pointing out simply because we question why Canadians would believe that another large federal program would ever come to fruition. What we know is that these programs are great announcements. The next prime minister of Canada has spoken about how people cannot eat the papers the announcements are printed on. They are incredible photo ops, when ministers go out to say that they might be capable of doing things, but Canadians know they are absolutely unable to do so. I had asked a question of the Minister of Health, which he, sadly, once again, failed to provide an answer to, but now I am quite happy to provide that answer on the Canadian dental care program. Last week I had the opportunity to speak to every dental association in this country, save the Yukon, simply because of time. That being said, I have a sample of the number of dentists who have signed up for this widely touted program. In my home province of Nova Scotia, four, not 400 or 14, but four dentists out of 400 have signed up for this program. It is shameful. In Prince Edward Island, it is even easier. The number is zero. There is no debating zero, it is none, zilch, nada. In New Brunswick, once again, to be clear, four out of 370 dentists have signed up. The most we were able to find was in speaking with the British Columbia Dental Association, and it had 400 out of 4,000, which is still a mere 10% of dentists. This is a program that has been created without any consultation with respect to dentists. It has been creating an incredible administrative burden on dentists. It has also created a conflict where dentists have to sign a contract with a provider, namely the federal government, as opposed to having a relationship with the patient, which is how health care has historically been delivered in this country. Dentists will continue to ask questions about this program. Why would they sign up for a program when they have distrust in this NDP-Liberal coalition? Let us talk a bit about affordable housing, which was another failure. It was promised by the government in 2015. It would have to build 9.6 million homes over the next 10 years. We also know they are now building less than this country was building 50, and not 15, but 50 years ago. Fewer houses are being built now because of the terrible policies of the NDP-Liberal coalition. We also know that the Prime Minister sat here in the House of Commons and promised 7,500 new doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners, and as I mentioned previously, 6.5 million Canadians now do not have access to primary care. We also know that the government continues to spend money, which could be easily used to generate these spots for Canadians, on its consultants. The government is quite happy to line the pockets of its friends. The Liberals also said they would reduce Canada's federal debt-to-GDP ratio every year, which sadly has not happened. We know that they can barely even deliver passports, which is actually one thing that is in the purview of the federal government. It is now announcing things that certainly delve into provincial jurisdiction, yet it cannot do things it should be able to do that are the purview of the federal government. As we begin to look at these things, we know that the NDP-Liberal coalition is an abject failure. People will often say that I have a lot of negative things to say. Why do I not give Canadians hope? Let us focus on that for a few minutes. The blue seal program we have announced, as Canada's Conservatives, would allow those who have trained internationally to quickly and safely have their credentials recognized here in Canada. That is a program that we would create because, as we go around this country, what we hear from new Canadians who have trained in other countries is that now they are driving taxicabs. I heard a story from one trained physician who is not allowed to work in this country. He was very sad because his young child asked him why, if he was a physician, he went to work dressed as a security guard every day. It does not get any worse for new Canadians than that. As we look at that, we know that Canada's Conservatives have been working hard to create policies that, when we form the next government, would easily allow new Canadians to have their credentials recognized here in Canada, so they can support Canada's health care system and work in a manner that is attuned to the training they have undertaken in their home countries. We have, again, a photo op. We have papers. We have announcements. We do not have a plan that has been put forward by the NDP-Liberal coalition, in any way, shape or form. We have more announcements. We have no actions, and we have continued interference in provincial jurisdictional matters. As I said, I have gone around the country speaking to provincial ministers of health. The last thing they want is another federal program dropped in the laps of the provinces, which they have to pay for because of the ineptitude of the NDP-Liberal coalition. We await the time when the Conservatives will form the next government of this country. We would have a new prime minister and new hope for Canadians, as they would be able to afford their lives, and the inflationary pressures and inflationary spending that continues to be put forth by the NDP-Liberal coalition would end. Canadians could then not be priced out of their lives. We would axe the tax, build the houses, fix the budget and stop the crime. I would like to put forward an amendment. I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “The House decline to give second reading to Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, since the Bill does nothing to address the health care crisis and will instead offer Canadians an inferior pharmacare plan that covers less, costs more and builds up a massive new bureaucracy that Canadians can't afford.”

2708 words