44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 16, 2024 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 11:40:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is really important to look at the contrast between what the Government of Canada, the Liberal Party, and the Conservative Party are espousing. We are the only party that is espousing the national health care system that Canadians have grown to love for generations now. What we are talking about is expanding it and looking at ways we can complement the national health care system by bringing in a pharmacare program or at least taking a good step forward. That is what we are proposing.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, are proposing to kill it. They are proposing that the federal government should not play a role in many aspects of health care. I believe that the Conservative Party is doing a great disservice to Canadians. Can the member give a clear indication as to why the Conservative Party does not believe pharmaceutical care has the role to play in Canadian health care that Canadians want it to play?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 11:44:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I had flashbacks when the member was speaking because, of course, we lived through the terrible years of the Harper regime. When the member said the Conservatives would take care of health care, we saw what the Harper regime did, which was to gut health care across the country, leading to the crisis we see today.
The member talked about credential recognition. I heard the same speech from Harper and his minions just before the Conservatives formed government, and the reality was that they did nothing on credential recognition. They doubled the cost of housing. They increased and doubled the lineups at food banks. The Harper regime was absolutely dismal. We lived through it and that is why the Conservatives were thrown out of power. Now, the Conservatives are saying that this time they would be better, but it kind of strikes at credibility.
The member did say very clearly that the Conservatives would destroy pharmacare. This is in Cumberland—Colchester, where 17,000 of his constituents actually need the kinds of supports that come from providing support for diabetes medications, which can run up to $900 a month. I would like the member to say clearly to his constituents in Cumberland—Colchester whether Conservatives would gut pharmacare. Do they refuse the kinds of supports that 17,000 people in Cumberland—Colchester need?
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 11:47:52 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in relation to the question my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester asked the Minister of Health, I have a letter from a local dentist in my area and I am wondering if the member could refer to any similarities between the Canadian dental care plan and what is being rolled out in the pharmacare plan.
This dentist says that it may place our oral dental care system in serious jeopardy. He goes on to say that it is deeply flawed and stands to jeopardize our entire established system and how they deliver care to their patients. He said that only 70% of dentists have said they are likely to participate as a provider in the CDCP program. He went on to say that patients are going to be surprised to learn that dental care will not be free, they may not be able to choose their preferred dentists and nothing has been done to protect access to third party insurance.
I would ask my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester if he can outline more than he did in his speech, which was a great speech, by the way, any similarities he can see between this plan and the pharmacare plan.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 12:11:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, many years ago, the Province of Saskatchewan implemented a policy and a program that ultimately led, in good part, to the national government recognizing how important it was to develop a national health care system.
As a direct result, over generations now, we have benefited from Canada's system. However, many people advocated, over the years, for a pharmacare component. What we are seeing today is historic legislation that would lead us to achieving that particular goal.
This is something that is universally shared across the country. People residing in every province understand and have faith in the Canada health system, whether they are in Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax or any municipality in between. There is a great deal of support for the federal government to be involved in health care. That is why we have the Canada Health Act.
Does the member not believe that Canada has more of a role to play than just being an ATM?
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 12:16:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that the NDP member appears to know more about Quebec society than her leader, who said that, if things are not going well with health care in Quebec, it is because we are not investing enough. Since 2018, Quebec's health care budget has actually increased from $40 billion to $59 billion. We are investing in health care. The problem is that the federal government is not doing enough.
If other provinces want to adopt a pharmacare plan, they are free to do so, but I would like to hear the NDP and the member explicitly say that Quebec should have the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 12:41:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have often witnessed a sad thing in Manitoba, where individuals who go into hospital situations require medications after they leave the hospital. While they are in the hospital, the medication is free, but when they leave, they have to cover their own costs for medications. That puts many people, especially those on fixed incomes, in positions where they have to decide on food versus medicine. Ultimately, they end up going back to the hospital because they are not taking the medications that they should be taking.
When I think of the long term and how we evolve and develop a pharmacare program, we should be reflecting on what it initially meant when we brought in a national health care system, and there was always the thought of having a pharmacare component to it. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on how important it is that we recognize this as is a stepping stone moving forward into a stronger and healthier health care system.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 12:42:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I often disagree with the member for Winnipeg North, as he disagrees with me, but on this issue, we are in solidarity because he is absolutely right. We are wasting tax dollars on a health care system that has been dysfunctional. When a person goes to a hospital due to a medical emergency, medication is paid for. Then, the moment they leave, it is up to them, and they are on their own. If they have to scrimp on food or have to move out of their apartment to pay for that medication, it is up to them. The reality for so many Canadians, for hundreds who die every year, is that they simply cannot afford to do all those things. It is time that we put in place pharmacare, and it is time that we start extending it to other types of medications.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 12:43:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is not a pharmacare plan; this is a PR exercise by an NDP-Liberal coalition that is floundering in the polls. There is a reason that almost a quarter of the NDP MPs are not seeking re-election.
The member is from British Columbia, as am I also. As he was speaking, I was looking up what the plan is for pharmacare in B.C. It says, specifically, that pharmacare covers approved diabetes management supplies and most insulin. It is already covered. The plan being proposed does not even compare.
I wonder if the member will also mention that, due to inflationary spending, we have to pay $50 billion in interest and that it is actually undermining health care across Canada.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 12:45:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out what the NDP member did, that is, highlight the exemplary work of Quebec's labour federations, which fought for years for Quebec to implement universal pharmacare. We succeeded. For 20 years, I took part in the fight that led to the implementation of the pharmacare plan Quebec has today. The plan is not perfect, but it is false to claim that Canada is going to create a pharmacare plan without taking the reality of Quebec and the provinces into account.
If my colleague were honest, he could also have said that the labour federations called for the right to opt out with full compensation. It says so in their statements. However, the NDP does not care about that because it wants social programs that extend from coast to coast to coast. We know that New Zealand has a population of five million. Canada has a population of 34 million, and this number will continue to grow.
If the federal government does not respect the provinces' jurisdictions, in particular when it comes to administering social programs and programs like health care, that goes totally against what Canada stands for.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 12:47:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois should apologize for trying to distort what I just said. Caroline Senneville, president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, said the following: “The labour federations believe that Quebec is misguided in calling for an unconditional right to opt out.”
Luc Vachon, president of the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, said that “the time has come to move beyond constitutional squabbling”.
The reality is that all of these labour federations, which represent one million workers in Quebec, which amounts to almost one-third of Quebec's population, said that they welcomed the introduction of a pharmacare bill. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois should take responsibility by supporting the bill and sending it to committee so that we can move forward with the bill, which the labour federations welcome.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.
Bill C-64, the pharmacare act, is a transformative shift in our national approach to health care. We are taking a decisive step towards not just improving health care but also fundamentally redefining what it means to be a part of this great nation.
Health care is a cornerstone of Canadian identity, rooted in the belief that access to medical care should be based on need, not ability to pay. However, until now, this promise has been incomplete, because it has not fully covered medications.
Bill C-64 would establish a framework towards national universal pharmacare in Canada for certain prescription drugs and related products, including free coverage for contraception and diabetes medication. This is more than policy; it is a new chapter in our social contract.
This comes after our Canadian dental care program. That program reduced the financial barrier to accessing oral health care services for up to nine million uninsured Canadian residents.
Let us consider the significance of this moment. Many of our citizens, particularly the chronically ill and the economically vulnerable, have had to choose between medication and other essentials of life. This choice, which no one should ever have to make, has led to deteriorating health conditions, increased hospitalizations and, tragically, premature deaths.
Bill C-64 would also mandate that the Canadian Drug Agency works towards the development of a national formulary, develop a national bulk purchasing strategy and support the publication of a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription medications.
Several G7 countries have implemented national pharmacare programs that vary in structure but share the common goal of improving access to medications. In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service covers most prescription medications, with patients paying a fixed prescription charge or obtaining an exemption. It has made medications free for children, the elderly and low-income individuals.
France operates a co-payment system in which patients are reimbursed for a significant portion of their medication costs based on the medication's necessity and effectiveness. Some essential medications are covered at 100%.
Germany features a statutory health insurance system that covers the vast majority of the population. Prescriptions require a nominal co-pay that is capped annually.
Similarly, Italy's national health system provides medications at low or no cost, depending on the medication's classification and the patient's income level.
Japan has a system where patients pay a percentage of the costs for their prescriptions. This is adjusted based on income, age and chronic health status, ensuring that no one is denied access because of financial constraints.
These G7 countries demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that essential medications are affordable. This reduces the financial burden on individuals and promotes better health outcomes across the population.
The United States and Canada have distinct health care systems that reflect differing approaches to health care management and funding. The U.S. health care system is predominantly privatized; health insurance is primarily provided through private entities. It is supplemented by government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, for specific groups such as the elderly and low-income individuals. This system often results in higher out-of-pocket costs for individuals, depending on their insurance plans.
In contrast, Canada's health care system is publicly funded. Funded through taxation, it provides universal coverage for all Canadian citizens and permanent residents. Health care services in Canada are delivered through a single-payer system, meaning that the government pays for care that is delivered by private entities. This model aims to ensure that access to health care does not depend on one's ability to pay.
While both systems aim to deliver high-quality medical care, the Canadian system is generally more focused on equitable access, whereas the U.S. system offers a wider range of provider choices and faster access to elective procedures, often at a higher cost to the consumer. The U.S. system also features higher health care spending per capita compared with Canada, which has managed to control costs more effectively through its single-payer system.
As a diabetic, I would like to touch on the transformative change that promises to reshape the lives of the more than 3.7 million Canadians living with diabetes.
Diabetes, a chronic and complex disease, poses one of the greatest health challenges in our nation, impacting an enormous swath of our population across every age, socio-economic status and community. The burden of diabetes is not only a personal struggle but also a national concern. The profound physical, emotional and financial strain of diabetes is well-documented. This disease, if not managed properly, can lead to devastating complications, such as blindness, kidney failure, heart disease and even amputations. However, despite the availability of effective treatments, a staggering one in four Canadians with diabetes has reported that, solely because of cost, they have not adhered to their prescribed medical regimen. This is not a failure in health management; it is a failure in our health policy.
The introduction of the pharmacare act is a beacon of hope. This legislation is a crucial step towards eliminating the financial barriers that too many Canadians face in accessing essential diabetes medications. By ensuring that no one is left out because they cannot afford their medicine, we would not only improve individual health outcomes but also enhance our nation's health security. The importance of this act for the diabetes community cannot be overstated. Improved access to necessary medications would mean better disease management and control, which would significantly reduce the risk of severe complications. This is a direct investment in the health of millions of people, and the ripple effects would be seen throughout our health care system. Fewer complications from diabetes mean reduced hospital admissions, fewer medical emergencies and a general decrease in the health care burden on our system. We are not just providing medication; we are restoring opportunities and enhancing the well-being of millions of Canadians.
I would say to all Canadians living with diabetes that this legislation is for them. It is a testament to our belief that, together, as a united nation, we can tackle the challenges of chronic disease with compassion and resolve. Let us move forward with the assurance that our government is committed to their health and well-being. Let us embrace this change, not just for those living with diabetes, but for us all, for a healthier, stronger Canada.
To conclude, Bill C-64 lays out our plan for universal, single-payer coverage for contraception and diabetes medications. Through our bilateral health agreements with the provinces and territories, the Canadian dental care plan and now pharmacare, we are delivering on the promise that every Canadian deserves better health care.
1135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 1:16:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the whole issue around pharmacoeconomics is very complex because governments look at the potential benefits of drug use versus the costs, and it becomes a budgetary and political decision. What we are doing with pharmacare is providing more funding so we can surmount these political and budgetary obstacles to providing Canadians with the drugs they need for free.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 1:30:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I must say that I disagree immensely with almost everything from the start to the end of the comments that my colleague made. Of course, I am not going to add to them. I would like to know what he would be doing, what your government would be doing and what your party would be doing, if it had the opportunity to become the government, which I hope it does not, actually, because I look back on the years of the previous Conservative government, and it was a question of taking away and deteriorating health care.
I think the dental program and the pharmacare program are really important to all my constituents. I am not getting the complaints my colleague was mentioning. My constituents are very grateful to have that program and are already using it. I would expect that my colleague has many people in his constituency who would be very glad to be able to access this program. Is he at a point of eventually supporting this program?
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 1:32:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know that the Conservatives have consistently opposed pharmacare. We heard my colleague from Timmins—James Bay highlight that the Conservative deputy leader was a lobbyist for AbbVie, a large pharma company in North America that jacked up its prices on medications for seniors by over 470%. Who really needs pharmacare lobbyists when we have Conservatives here?
I want clarity, because I heard him say, misleading the House, that people in British Columbia are covered for insulin. That is not true.
I am going to give my colleague another chance to clarify that insulin is not free in British Columbia, and in fact, it is a huge cost to many British Columbians, especially working-class British Columbians. Is he going to oppose, for those British Columbians who require insulin, this legislation that would provide them the support they need on life-saving medication, especially when someone loses their job and their deductible is no longer within their affordability level.
I would like some clarification from my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 1:44:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for sharing his personal stories and congratulate him on his first speech in the chamber.
Could the member give his personal perspective on the principles of a national pharmacare program?
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 1:45:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my concern in being asked about pharmacare is that I have been drawn into a debate that assumes the Liberal-NDP government will do what it says it will do. Over the course of the last eight years, we have seen that is simply not going to happen.
We have a country full of people, tens of millions of people, who have been led to believe over and over again that the Liberal-NDP government and the Prime Minister are going to deliver for the hard-working people of our country, yet that has never happened.
Before I discuss anything like the principles of pharmacare, I would like to be convinced that something substantive actually will happen for the people of Canada. I would love to go back to my riding and say that the Liberals have a plan for us. Unfortunately, everything I have seen since I got here last Monday has indicated otherwise.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 1:47:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when I was a cancer patient at North York General Hospital and Sunnybrook hospital, I saw many people in very dire health circumstances, people facing all sorts of challenges, some of with whom I shared a cancer ward. What was very clear to me was that we needed programs that could help people who did not have the money to purchase the drugs they needed. The cancer ward at North York General Hospital has a provincial program to help people with drugs.
What I continue to be confused about, as I hear this debate on pharmacare, is why there is not a greater recognition of the need to work with the provinces to solve some of these problems. I saw people right beside me, hooked up to the same IVs as I was, getting their body pumped with chemotherapy drugs. They depended on those provincial programs to get the health care they needed. What I worry about, and I think what my fellow cancer patients at North York General Hospital would worry as well, including cancer patients all across the country, is whether this is a matter of creating more bureaucracy in Ottawa or whether we are actually concerned about providing people with what they need at an affordable price.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise today to speak to a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-64. I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.
This is important legislation because, for decades, we have been talking about the need to bring in pharmacare. I look at this as the first step in bringing in pharmacare, which could cover a whole host of drugs and medicines that are very important for people. I would agree with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who was speaking earlier, that this is about preventative health care. This is about helping people before they get to the point when they would need to go to an emergency room. This is about getting people their very important medication.
When we have an issue like this that further builds on our health care system, which is a health care system that has developed over generations through, at times, very difficult partnerships and relationships with provinces, I am disheartened to see that, in the very first speech on this issue, when Conservatives stood, they brought in a motion to amend the bill. The amendment would basically substitute everything after the word “That” with “The House decline to give second reading”. That is all the Conservatives did.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, now they are clapping. Conservatives are clapping as a result of this non-motion. They could have just voted against the bill to say they were not interested. Instead, they introduced a second vote. It will take 10 minutes to vote down their amendment before we vote in favour and pass this very important piece of legislation. I imagine that, much like there was with the piece of legislation on sustainable jobs, which we finally voted on yesterday, there will be obstruction after obstruction with Conservatives playing with the bill at committee and through the various stages of the House.
I ask myself why Conservatives would be so dead set against legislation like this. In my opinion, this is about helping people, particularly the people who really need help. The vast majority of Conservative donors, and the people they look to for fundraising, are individuals who, quite frankly, could probably afford to have private insurance or work in a job that provides insurance. The individuals I see who would really benefit from this legislation are those vulnerable individuals in our society who are not covered by health care or pharmacare plans or who do not have insurance in one way or another.
One of the criticisms we hear from Conservatives is that this is about provincial jurisdiction. The Conservatives have said that this is provincial jurisdiction and ask why we are getting in the way of it. I will then ask them why they voted in favour of the national child care plan. They got up to talk down the plan for hours on end, but ultimately, they ended up voting in favour of it. That was something we needed to work together with the provinces on to make it a reality. The Conservatives saw a benefit in voting in favour of that, so they did. However, they cannot seem to see the same way forward with this particular issue.
This bill would introduce pharmacare by first setting up the system to provide for two drugs: insulin, for individuals with diabetes, and contraceptives. This is extremely important. There are nine million women and gender-diverse Canadians all across the country who would get access to the contraception and reproductive autonomy they deserve. This is really important in the context we are in, and I will explain why.
Right now, when we look south of the border, we are literally watching state legislatures and the Supreme Court of the United States make rulings that are further confining the ability of a woman's right to choose. We are seeing legislation being adopted that is something that we thought would have been dreamt up, that we would have assumed the United States had moved away from decades ago. Canada will stand up to a very aggressive position to say that we will not go down the same road as the United States. Despite the fact that many Conservatives, I am sure, would love to do that, we will not. We will ensure that a woman would have not only the right to choose, but also free access to the necessary medication specifically for contraceptive purposes.
I will certainly be voting in favour of this. I look forward to this bill coming to the House so we can have that vote, if the Conservatives ever let us get there.
793 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 1:56:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if I understand the member correctly, what he is saying is that his province has to send people to the U.S. for treatment. I do not know about that, but I will take his word for it that he believes it. He is saying his province has to send people to the United States, so we should not try to do anything else to help Canadians.
This legislation is about developing a national framework. I am sorry that there are issues in his province with health care. He should come to Ontario. I would love to have a chat with him about the issues that Doug Ford has created in Ontario.
However, that is beside the point. What we are talking about is developing a national strategy as it relates to pharmacare. This member can find all the excuses in the book that he wants to vote against this. At the end of the day, what he is going to do is vote against helping vulnerable Canadians, in particular, getting access to the medications they need.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
