SoVote

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

Apr/16/24 12:30:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, from the reaction of the Conservatives, it is obvious they are a little worried about this. They know that they have not consulted their constituents. They have not talked to them. The Conservatives love to say that they are concerned about affordability. We recall that under the dismal, terrible Harper regime, food line-ups and the price of housing doubled. They say that Liberals did the same thing, but the reality is that the Conservatives, at no point, have ever taken responsibility for what they imposed on Canadians. At least the Liberals are willing to accept NDP leadership to bring forward things that will benefit people, such as dental care, affordable housing and, now, pharmacare. If the Conservatives are sensitive about this, if they are saying that do not want people talking to their constituents, the 17,000 to 18,000 people who would benefit from having their diabetes medication and devices taken care of, we have to wonder about their motivation. They do not want to consult their constituents themselves and they do not want anybody else to consult their constituents. They just want to, in a disconnected way, make their speeches in the House of Commons, without actually talking to the people who would benefit from the bill. We have to wonder about the kind of responsibility the Conservatives take as elected representatives, particularly given how deplorable their record was when in government. Under the Harper regime, it was the worst government in Canadian history. I could easily spend hours speaking to that, and in fact I did. As members will recall, I spoke for 14 hours about the 2012 budget and the appalling impacts of that budget on Canadians, on Canadian seniors and on environmental policy. I could literally speak for hours about the scandals, the dishonesty, the lack of transparency and the brutality of the Harper regime; about what it did to seniors, forcing them to work longer; what it did to veterans by shutting off all their services. However, I am going to leave that for today. Hopefully, at some future time, we can really remind Canadians how dismal and terrible the Harper regime was. The Conservatives who were there should be ready to apologize, but they have never apologized for everything they did. Here is an opportunity for the Conservatives to address the wrongs when they were in government, when housing prices doubled, when they slashed affordable housing and when they ensured that services were gutted. They have an opportunity to address some of those things, and they are saying no. They are refusing to provide pharmacare or have any kinds of supports for the people in their ridings, the 17,000 or 18,000 people in each of their ridings who would benefit from having their diabetes medication covered. They are saying that they do not want to help their constituents at all. That is a sad thing. The reality is that this bill on pharmacare would make a big difference, on average, for every member of Parliament, not just the Conservatives. Every member of Parliament in the House of Commons would see 17,000 to 18,000 of their constituents benefit. The people who are struggling to pay for their diabetes medication, to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head would benefit. Imagine the cost of up to $900 a month, and we are talking about a $10,000 benefit, yet the Conservatives say that they are not interested. There is more. This is where we get back to three years ago when this was brought forward in the House of Commons. The Conservatives and Liberals, with alacrity, voted down the Canada pharmacare bill. Thankfully, the Liberals are now apologizing for that by bringing forward and supporting the pharmacare bill. As we know, with pharmacare writ large, and the Parliament Budgetary Office has indicated this so many times, the overall savings to Canadians would be about $4 billion. The savings to our health care system are enormous. Many of the people who end up in our emergency wards across the country are there because they cannot afford to pay for their medication that keeps them in good health. Canada is the only country that has universal health care, thanks to Tommy Douglas and the NDP fighting hard for it in the 1960s, but does not have universal pharmacare. Why is it that every other country has coupled universal health care with universal pharmacare? It is that having access to medication beyond the hospital makes good sense for the health care system as a whole. If someone can take the medication their doctor prescribes for them to keep them in good health, they are not going to spend their time in the acute care ward or the emergency ward at the hospital. We know what those costs are. An acute care bed over the course of a week is $30,000. Why would we not put pharmacare in place in a way that allows someone to stay in good health and to stay out of the hospital? That is why the Parliamentary Budget Officer stressed not only the savings to the health care system, but also the savings that come from bulk purchasing negotiations that have led other countries like New Zealand to reduce the cost of some of its medications by up to 90%. It is no longer a multitude of hundreds of different negotiations taking place where the pharmaceutical companies can play one against the other. With a universal pharmacare system, we can tell the pharmaceutical companies what prices we are going to pay. When New Zealand reduced the cost of some of its medications by 90%, that was due to bulk purchasing being the best practice. Conservatives will not talk about this at all because, quite frankly, I find most Conservatives are mathematically challenged. When it comes to budgets, they simply do not do it well. We saw it under the Harper regime and its record deficits. They are terrible when it comes to managing money and to paying down debt. According to a stellar source, the Ministry of Finance, in its fiscal period returns, actually compared NDP governments with Conservative and Liberal governments at the provincial and the federal levels. NDP governments, over the last 40 years, have been the best at managing money and at ensuring money goes into the health care system for things like that. Rather than paying money to the pharmaceutical companies, we need to be negotiating cheaper prices and making sure it is accessible to everybody, which then saves money in the health care system. It means fewer stays in acute care beds and fewer visits to emergency wards. It makes sense, which is why other countries have universal health care and universal pharmacare. This is the first important step to universal pharmacare. It is to ensure that people who are forced to take diabetes medication and who need access to diabetes devices actually have them paid for and no longer have to question whether they can pay for them. If they cannot pay for them, they end up in the hospital and it costs our health care system far more than having pharmacare in place. It just makes good sense. It is not just that people who cannot afford to pay for their medication end up in acute care beds and in emergency wards, but Canadian nurses have been telling us for years that, tragically, hundreds of Canadians die every year because they cannot afford to pay for the medication that would keep them alive. That is hundreds of Canadians. This has been a crisis in our health care system. People cannot afford to pay for their medication, so they go to the hospital and cost the health care system more with an acute care bed, but worse, they also pass away. That creates even more mourning in the health care system. We simply should not be willing to tolerate that. Conservatives and Liberals, for decades, have said that it is not their problem. They were not going to take charge of it. Thankfully, the Liberals, and I do compliment the Minister of Health for stepping up on this, are finally moving forward with the first step of pharmacare in Canada. This is vitally important. Professionals in the health care system say that this is the smart thing to do. Financially, we know it costs $4 billion less to have a pharmacare program in place than it would to continue with the patchwork we have now. If we could save hundreds of lives, then all these things make sense. It should not even be a matter of controversy. This should be adopted at all stages and adopted by all members of Parliament. As I mentioned, 17,000 to 18,000 Canadians, in every riding in the country, would benefit from just having access to the diabetes medication that is prescribed in the bill. The NDP is happy to see this first step taken. We are not going to give up. We are going to keep pushing. I have constituents who are paying $1,000 a month for heart medication, and that is going to be the next push for us. However, we believe strongly that the House should be adopting the bill. We should move it to committee, and we should get going with putting in place the first steps of pharmacare in Canada.

1579 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

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

Mr. Peter Julian

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

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

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

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/16/24 12:44:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member has just made my point. Yes, B.C. is already moving. It is the leader in the country in terms of affordable housing, with more housing built in British Columbia than in the rest of the country combined. It is a leader in the country in environmental legislation, in health care investments and in post-secondary education. Therefore, the member is absolutely right to point out that the B.C. NDP government is doing the best job in the country of any government, and we appreciate that he is acknowledging that. The point is that we want to bring these best practices from B.C. and put them in place right across the country. The member also mentioned deficits. I find it rich that any Conservative would talk about deficits after their deplorable record of $30 billion a year given to overseas tax havens. Under the Harper tax haven treaties, it was $30 billion. Over their watch, it was $300 billion. They have been absolutely deplorable in financial management, and we are still paying the cost today.

183 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

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

Mr. Peter Julian

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

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Apr/16/24 12:48:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was fascinating to watch the Conservatives put up their doctor who just trashed the notion of medical treatment, not with any facts, but with those kinds of bumper-sticker slogans: four legs good, two legs bad. I was trying to understand how a doctor could be so dismissive of basic health care. Then, of course, it dawned on me that the Conservatives' deputy leader was a lobbyist for AbbVie. That was a company that jacked up its medical prices for seniors by over 470%, so we know what the Conservatives would do with seniors and medical treatment. They do not want seniors to get pharmacare. Then, we also find out that the Conservative Party's governing body is full of lobbyists for big pharma. I'd like to ask my hon. colleague why the Conservative MPs and their one doctor are so concerned about protecting the interests of companies that they worked for that have jacked up medical costs on basic pharmacare for seniors.

167 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/16/24 12:49:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. The corporate Conservatives are all over; there are lobbyists in their ranks and lobbyists influencing the Conservative Party. They see Canadians as plunder, and they can just jack up oil and gas prices. It was jacked up 30¢ in British Columbia as gas price gouging, and not a single Conservative MP from British Columbia said one word. With grocery price gouging and food price gouging, we find out that the director of the next Conservative campaign is a Loblaws lobbyist. There is not a word about food price gouging. The Conservatives simply allow the corporate sector to plunder Canadians. We saw this under the Harper regime. As my colleague from Timmins—James Bay points out, it was the worst government in Canadian history. We saw big corporations basically ravaging this country. The Conservatives' massive giveaway of $30 billion each and every year did not go to seniors, to students or to health care. It does not go to support any building at all in the country. It went to the Harper tax haven treaties. Basically, they signed a whole bunch of tax haven treaties so that the wealthy and the big corporations could take their money overseas and not pay a dime of tax. Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves.

227 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Apr/16/24 12:51:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

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

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Apr/16/24 1:01:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the great failings of the Canadian medical system is that we stopped at the moment we brought in universal health care, which Canadians believe in and want, and did not go further in bringing forth the pharmacare every other G7 country has. Considering what we are seeing now with right-wing provincial governments, such as Doug Ford leaving community after community in Ontario with ERs closed on the weekends and the fact that they will hire privatized nurses at huge costs while underfunding the public system, is the hon. member concerned that we are going to see the likes of premiers Danielle Smith, Scott Moe and Doug Ford try to kill a really important initiative to help Canadians? How will we prevent them from doing that?

130 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

Apr/16/24 1:02:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right that the health care system is not perfect today. A lot of challenges are being faced, and the responsibility lies with the provinces. The federal government has taken enormous steps to improve the health care of the country as a whole. We have allocated $198 billion, mostly to the provinces and territories, to deliver better health care. My wish is that the provinces step up and shoulder their part of the responsibility to develop quality care for all residents.

86 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Apr/16/24 1:03:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will follow up that question with some facts about Saskatchewan. Its provincial government is deeply engaged in assisting, as an example, its seniors get the medications they need if they do not have their own third party plan. My mother is a senior. This program would not be sufficient and would be far more expensive than the care we have. There is a possibility that third party providers that exist now would throw up their hands, and no longer provide the kind of care that over 90% of Canadians are already receiving, to allow this program to exist in its stead. In challenging the provincial government in an area that is its responsibility and in which it is doing good work, is the member suggesting that maybe Canadians expect and fear this reality?

136 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

Apr/16/24 1:03:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, health care is important for all Canadians. It is the responsibility of all levels of government to work together collaboratively so Canadians get the quality health care they deserve. Unfortunately, certain provinces are not in a very collaborative mood when it comes to dealing with the federal government, which has taken enormous steps during the last several years to provide additional funding to the health care system.

69 words

Health
Care

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

Apr/16/24 1:04:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague suffers from diabetes, so I am certainly interested in hearing his perspective as to why we are focusing on the two areas of diabetes and contraceptives at this point. Why are we seeing the prioritization of diabetes and contraceptives in this bill?

49 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

Apr/16/24 1:05:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there was a certain period of time in my life in Canada when I did not have any prescription coverage; therefore, as a diabetic myself, I understand personally how important it is that this sort of support is given to people who do not have coverage available to them. As I mentioned in my speech, this is the first step towards dealing with that. We have to start somewhere. Diabetes affects a vast number of people. Coverage for contraceptives is available to about nine million Canadians, and diabetes coverage is available to about 3.7 million. This is a step towards a single universal pharmacare system in Canada.

110 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Apr/16/24 1:06:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today and speak in support of this bill to bring in the first stages of national pharmacare to this country. Pharmacare has figured as a commitment in the Liberal platform. I would go further and say that it is an extension, really, of an arc of social justice that began many decades ago with hospital insurance. Before we had medicare, we had hospital insurance. If someone went to the hospital they did not have to pay, but then they would have to pay if they went to see their physician. Then, of course, we brought in medicare. On that score, I would like to come back to something that the member for Cumberland—Colchester said that made me think back to 50 or 60 years ago. He said, in reference to dental care, that the plan for dental care would result in the dentist focusing more on the relationship with the payer, the insurance companies, than on the relationship with the patient. That was one of the main criticisms of medicare in 1970 when the federal and provincial governments were implementing medicare. At the time, many medical professionals, doctors, said it would not be good because it would bureaucratize their profession as they would have to deal with government bureaucracy and that would leave less time to deal with patients. In the final analysis, we saw that it was a more efficient system. Doctors know that they will get paid. They do not have to hire a bill collection agency to collect medical bills and so on. It is funny that we are going back to arguments that were raised 70 years ago when there was opposition, initially, to implementing medicare in this country. I would like to go back, for a moment, to the pandemic, because I think it is important. The pandemic was a watershed moment in so many ways. I think it will take decades of analysis and doctoral theses, maybe, to really understand how the pandemic changed our world. However, the pandemic did something for public policy that I am not sure we think enough about. It showed us that we can deliver support to citizens in ways that we never thought possible. If one had asked the government before the pandemic to offer support directly to Canadians through the CRA, through payments based on attestation, one would have been shut down right away. The bureaucrats and politicians would have said that it was absolutely impossible. We proved that it was possible in a crisis to bring financial support to Canadians in a very streamlined way, in a very direct way and in a very timely way. I think that gave confidence to government that it could deliver other services in a very efficient way. Dental care is one example of that. I would bet that if someone had said we could deliver dental care directly through dentists with an insurance company making payments to dental offices and so forth, people would have said we could not do that as lots of bureaucracy would be needed. However, the pandemic showed us that we can do things directly and efficiently. That brings me to pharmacare and this initial building block of a national pharmacare system. We have heard the Conservatives raise the spectre of a national pharmacare system requiring immense amounts of bureaucracy, but we have learned from the past that these kinds of services with this kind of financial support can be delivered rather effectively. Now, we know that provincial health care systems across this country are bogged down in bureaucracy. We have seen some of the tragic consequences of that, but when we are talking about the delivery of drugs, each province has a very efficient and effective pharmacy network that already liaises with governments and with private insurance companies, such that when one gets a prescription, the pharmacist already knows that one is covered by a private insurer, or if one is not covered by a private insurer, they know that one is covered by the government system. There is already a very efficient infrastructure in place to deliver national pharmacare with the help of the infrastructure set up within the provinces, so I do not believe this idea that national pharmacare is going to create a heavy burden of bureaucracy. The member for Cumberland—Colchester talked about the so-called blue seal program that his party is putting forward as a way of recognizing credentials for foreign-trained doctors. Our government is already doing that. Taking away from the fact that it is already provincial jurisdiction to recognize credentials, we do not hear any objections from the other side about invading provincial jurisdiction when we talk about recognizing credentials. The recognition of credentials is, in fact, something that is done by provincial colleges of medical professionals. All of a sudden, the invasion of provincial jurisdiction does not seem to enter into the picture. However, the point is that, if we want to do that kind of thing, we are still going to need some bureaucracy. We are going to have to have some government employees who are coordinating something. That is just the way it is in modern governments. Sometimes I fear that the Conservatives do not understand the realities of modern governments, but I will not get into all of that right now. In terms of the role of the federal government when it comes to pharmaceutical products, let me go back to the CERB. It is conventional wisdom that it is the provincial governments that deliver social assistance in this country, yet during the pandemic I did not hear any provincial governments complaining that we were providing CERB to citizens in need. I did not hear it then. All of a sudden, it is back in the picture. Back to pharmaceuticals, the federal government is deeply involved in the pharmaceutical industry. It does inspections of pharmaceutical companies. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has a role in determining the prices of pharmaceuticals. Health Canada is involved in approving drugs for safety and medical devices. This idea that there is this clean-cut distinction between the federal government and the provinces when it comes to those kinds of products is, I think, a bit of a stretch. That being said, I am not in the government but I think I can speak on behalf of the government. The federal government is not seeking to manage more things. We have lots of responsibilities. If the provinces can do something well, why not? If the provinces can achieve the goals that we have set, based on what Canadians want, then why not? The federal government is not seeking to manage all aspects of pharmacare, but I think that we are responding to the wishes and priorities of Canadians in proposing this plan. I would like to come back to another argument that was raised by the Conservatives in this debate. Somehow, in a kind of twisted logic, it was suggested that national pharmacare is going to cause inflation. I do not understand that, but I could be wrong. Maybe I have a blind spot and I do not see all of the logic of the argument, but how can providing free drugs to Canadians who need drugs fuel pharmaceutical price inflation? Pharmacare is an affordability measure. The Conservatives claim to care so much about affordability, but every time we want to do something on affordability, whether child care, pharmacare or dental care, they vote against it. I do not think they care about affordability.

1270 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC)

Apr/16/24 1:15:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points on the things I have heard this morning. Of course, the NDP is talking about cuts that were there during the Harper era. If one were to look at the amount of money from the budgets over the years, when the Liberals first took power, that was the first time that it had ever ducked below the 3% floor that was given. That statement is certainly one that they talk a lot about, but it is incorrect. The other question I would like to ask the member has to do with the formularies that the provinces already have. In order to get drugs approved, we go through the federal system, but then it goes into the provinces and they make the decisions on how much they can afford to cover. This is different around the country. I am wondering if the member is at least curious about what the consequences will be when that decision comes from the federal government versus the provinces, whose responsibility it is to deliver health care.

179 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

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

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Apr/16/24 1:16:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been listening intently to my Conservative colleagues, who promise something and then oppose it. For example, they really pushed for the suicide hotline and then voted against it. They tried to cut off the funding for it. One wonders why they do these things. I was noticing the Conservative deputy leader was a lobbyist for AbbVie. This is a pharmaceutical company that jacked up the price of medications for senior citizens by 470%. We know who the Conservatives work for. They are not there for seniors. They are not there for ordinary people. They are freaked out that, if people have access to medication and the Conservatives get into power, they are not going to be able to rip off seniors to benefit the lobbyists, who are pretty much running the national Conservative Party and certainly the deputy leader. This is why we have seen their complete unwillingness to take on grocery price hikes, because the member in Stornoway's boss is a Loblaws lobbyist. I would like to ask the member what he thinks about a party that would go along with jacking up medication for senior citizens by 470% to benefit its friends.

199 words