SoVote

May/6/24 5:30:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, I am a proud Quebecker. Our program is going to help millions of women, people from various backgrounds and people with diabetes. It is going to help everyone, all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

36 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/6/24 5:31:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, members have spoken a lot today about the money saved by individuals and the money saved by the system, which we could reinvest into health care. By providing free contraception, an individual is said to have a lifetime savings of up to $10,000, which is huge. I would like to hear more about the larger issue. How can this piece of legislation itself, through contraception, empower women and those who menstruate?

74 words

Ms. Anju Dhillon

May/6/24 5:31:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have been talking a lot throughout our speeches, as have all our colleagues, about how we are investing in Canadians, and this is an investment. There is a saying that it is better to prevent than to cure. This is one of those times when we could prevent, for example, botched procedures or when women have to go out of their way to do things to protect themselves and to make sure there are not unwanted pregnancies. This national pharmacare program would help women and those who are gender diverse to be able not just to cure but also to prevent. It would make sure that they have optimal health and that their well-being and mental health are being taken care of at the same time.

130 words

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

May/6/24 5:32:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks with great interest, particularly around the risk of people being uninsured. I am not sure everyone always realizes what that is and what it means until they get into trouble. I would like to hear her speak more on the different vulnerable population groups who could be working but who could be under-insured.

63 words

Ms. Anju Dhillon

May/6/24 5:33:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it would be surprising to most Canadians to learn that there is a huge under-insurance problem in this country. Many people, we could say, slip through the cracks. As I mentioned in my speech, for those who are part-time workers, who end up getting phased out of their parents' health insurance plans and for those who are taking social assistance, there is always a gap between the two insurances. We need to make sure that everybody is covered and that every Canadian is treated equally. It is all about equality and equity. This is how those gaps can be prevented. As my hon. colleague from London—Fanshawementioned, it is important for women to be able to take care of themselves. It should not matter what one's income bracket is. One should be able to access contraceptives and these services in order to create a more equal society.

153 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

May/6/24 5:34:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to speak to Bill C-64. Before I go any further, I would like to let the Speaker know I will be splitting my time with my good friend and colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain. The debate today is about Bill C-64, an act regarding pharmacare. At least everybody is being told that is what it is about. I would rather call it, I guess, the so-called pharmacare bill because I think that “the cost of keeping the Parliament going bill” is probably a name that has already been used. This bill is very tepid. It is not a national pharmacare program. This is actually just a piece of legislation that is meant to check a box to keep a supply and confidence agreement in place. To the NDP members, I cannot believe they actually think this is the pharmacare bill they envisioned. I have not met a program the NDP members would not want to nationalize, but they say it is a very sad day when one— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

188 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/6/24 5:35:43 p.m.
Watch

There seems to be some cross discussion from one end of the chamber to the other. I see it is in front, so I apologize for that. I just want to say that it is disruptive when someone is trying to speak. It disturbs them, so I want to ask members to please be respectful. The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe has the floor.

66 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

May/6/24 5:36:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64 Bill C-47 Bill C-368

Madam Speaker, there is a joke going around that says, “It's not knowing that a politician can be bought; it's knowing how little they'll let themselves go for.” For a member of the NDP caucus right now thinking that this is the misery they are suffering in the polls, the misery they are suffering nationwide, which is the same misery Canadians are suffering, this is all they managed to get out of the supply and confidence arrangement with the government today. It is not a pharmacare program. Health care is actually a provincial jurisdiction. It should be delivered by the provinces. The bill would simply be adding contraceptives and some diabetes measures into it. I guess, on the surface of it, that is a good thing, but to the tune of $1.5 billion. If viewers watching at home actually believe this is all it is going to cost them, I will remind them that the government bought a $7 billion pipeline and built it for about $40 billion. Therefore, if history is any predictor of the future when it comes to what things cost under a Liberal-NDP coalition, then they should be looking at least to that example if not more. To us, as Conservatives, the issue is one of provincial jurisdiction. I come from Alberta, and this is a very important issue to our province and to our premier. This is just another intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. We think that, during these financial times, when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, pouring more fuel on the inflationary fire is certainly not going to help. It is another financial albatross in the making, which Canadians cannot afford and are not willing to pay for. It is not just me saying this, and it is not just Conservatives saying this. John Ivison eloquently stated in a piece that he published back on February 29, when the bill or this notion first came out, that this is “the woebegone child of a loveless Liberal-NDP marriage.” This is basically what we are dealing with. It has become clear to me that the bill before us is basically the cost of keeping the NDP support for this Parliament under supply and confidence, and the coalition partners can take this until October 2025. It was supposed to be October 20, but it is going to be extended by another week to make sure that certain people here get the financial benefits they think they are entitled to. However, it just goes to show that there is only one serious opposition in the House, and that is the Conservative Party. The NDP is not an opposition party but a willing accomplice to everything that the Liberal government has in its agenda. Its members have been witting partners in creating a massive inflationary deficit; setting restrictive policies towards, for example, lawful gun owners and natural health products, which they signed up for two years ago without even knowing they were going to vote in favour of that in Bill C-47 last year; impeding upon provincial jurisdiction time and time again, which is, of course, front and centre with this piece of legislation; continuing to cover up for the government's scandals, covering for it at committee and also here in the House of Commons; introducing soft-on-crime legislation or supporting that soft-on-crime legislation, which has turned our justice system into a revolving door; sending Canadians to food banks en masse, at a couple of million visitors, which is up over 300%; allowing housing prices to skyrocket; and neglecting our military to the point where our soldiers are basically relying on food donations while they are in Ottawa for training. I could continue, but I think members get the gist of what I am trying to say. It is bad enough that NDP members backed budget after budget and shut down our work to hold the government to account at committee, but they are telling Canadians that they are doing their actual work as an opposition party. Well, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot be in opposition while they support everything that the government does. I do not buy it, and neither do Canadians. A December 2023 Leger poll indicated that only 18% of Canadians listed the establishment of a national pharmacare program as a health care priority, and the promise was not included in the 2021 Liberal platform. Canadians did not vote for a party promising pharmacare, yet here we are, thanks to an NDP party that is keeping this weak and basically lame-duck government in office. It is no wonder that some provinces are already saying publicly that they are choosing to opt out. Let it be known that the absence of the NDP as an opposition is also keenly felt in other areas. Just last year, as I was mentioning, the NDP-Liberal coalition passed Bill C-47. I do not suppose anybody in the NDP was told, when they signed on to this supply and confidence agreement back in March 2022, that they would be asked to regulate natural health products in the same way as therapeutics, but they did it anyway. As a matter of fact, they made that commitment a year before the bill was passed, and it is going to basically shut down our supplements and natural health product industry when they are classified and rebranded as pharmaceutical drugs. What did the New Democrats do when this came up for debate? They backed the budget instead of forcing the government to remove those four little clauses from Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. They had a chance. They could have flexed their muscles and said they were not going to support the budget implementation act unless the government removed them, but no such request was forthcoming, and the bill passed. It has caused unforeseen chaos in the natural health products and supplements industry across this country; consumers, of course, are rightly worried. In response, I had to table my own private member's bill, Bill C-368, to reverse these changes. This is just part and parcel. New Democrats say one thing to Canadians but actually do another. Could anyone imagine such a thing as being the House leader of the NDP, for example, standing up and saying time and time again how much one does not like omnibus legislation, and yet gleefully passing Bill C-47. The NDP House leader has said this for the 18 years that he and I have been in the House together. However, he told the government that New Democrats would continue to pass every budget and every budget implementation act henceforth after March 2022. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot stand up and say New Democrats are going to hold the government to account while continuing to give it the keys to the house to do whatever it wants. In the case of natural health product governance and regulations, New Democrats tell Canadians they are against omnibus legislation and that they are keeping the government accountable. However, as I said, they voted for Bill C-47, threw that industry into turmoil and then criticized me for giving them an off-ramp on the Bill C-368 debate last week. I was giving them a pathway to redemption, and all they could do was basically blame Stephen Harper for the mess that the country is in. I cannot even make this stuff up. The most common questions I get from Canadians are these: When are we going to have an election? Who believes anything anybody in the NDP has to say anymore, when their actions are completely 180° opposite from what they say with their words? It should also be highlighted that the bill was introduced with no public consultations whatsoever, which comes as no surprise to Conservatives. This piece of legislation has been pushed from a government with a terrible record on transparency. It is a government that regularly rushes massive changes with little regard for those people the changes may impact. It talks about the intended consequences, but it never fully understands the unintended consequences of the things it does, which is why we are in the mess we are in today. The Conservative position on Bill C-64 is that the Liberals know this project is an expensive boondoggle. That is why they abandoned it in their 2019 election promise. Even former finance minister Bill Morneau noted in his book that a single-user system would cost an additional $15 billion a year. We cannot believe the $1.5 billion number, and that is why my colleagues here on the Conservative side and I will respect provincial jurisdiction and vote against this piece of legislation. We encourage New Democrats to change their ways before their party actually fades into oblivion forever.

1491 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

May/6/24 5:44:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have heard a number of Conservatives use the same line, that only 18% of Canadians, or one out of every five, think this should be a priority. I guess the fact that one out of every five Canadians needs something is not enough for the Conservatives. What is their number? When does it warrant a program? If it is not one out of every five Canadians, is it two out of every five, is it three, is it four, or is it when everybody demands this program? If one out of five Canadians needing this is not good enough for him, could the member tell me what number Conservatives will accept where, yes, it is good enough for Canadians?

122 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

May/6/24 5:45:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, health care delivery is provincial jurisdiction. The private insurance companies out there are already talking about how their systems and programs, which deliver tremendous results for Canadians, are going to be undercut. This is going to lead to a public system that does not offer the same value and benefits that the private system already does. Conservatives are going to respect provincial jurisdiction. It is too bad that the government has squandered $600 billion in debt and the debt servicing that goes along with it, so we are actually spending more on servicing our debt than we are on health care transfers. If only we had prudent fiscal management, we could transfer the money to the provinces so that each province could make a decision for itself about what coverage it wants to have for its citizens. That is the way Conservatives would have handled this.

148 words

Insurance

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/6/24 5:46:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we will repeat the same question, because that is the most important aspect for us. My colleague ended his speech by talking about what Ottawa should do instead of mismanaging the public purse. I am with him to that point. According to my colleague, the government should give the provinces money so that they can decide what to do and what to cover and not cover in their own jurisdictions. We know what Quebec wants. Quebec wants generous coverage. We already have a better system in place than the other provinces. In this context, how is it that my colleague got up last week to vote against the Bloc Québécois's subamendment to the budget, an amendment that called for the right to opt out with full compensation when the federal government spends money on programs that fall under provincial jurisdiction? Is he prepared to change his position and support a right to opt out with full compensation, as all elected officials in the Quebec National Assembly are calling for?

176 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

May/6/24 5:47:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we oppose this particular plan simply because we know it is nothing more than the cost of the agreement between the NDP and the current federal government. It is not a serious agreement in the sense that we are actually getting a national pharmacare program; as I said in my previous comments, which would have already answered my colleague's question, this is much better delivered through provincial jurisdiction. I am an Albertan, and as the member is a Quebecker, he ought to know that there is one thing Albertans and Quebeckers often have in common: We know how to look after our own people best, and we do not need these federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction.

119 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/6/24 5:48:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am curious. We have seen that the Conservative Party of Canada is riddled with corporate lobbyists in its governing body: big oil, real estate, anti-union companies, insurance companies and big pharma. In fact, its members are using the talking points from those corporate entities in their conversations today against the bill. Ultimately, is the member actually defending his constituents or the corporate interests of big lobbyists?

70 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

May/6/24 5:48:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the individual who just asked me the question had her answer in the question itself: support for big pharma. Who is supporting big pharma with this piece of legislation? The NDP and the Liberals are. A national pharmacare program will do more to help the pharmaceutical industry. Let us examine that for a second. Everything New Democrats say they are for, they are also against. This speaks to the same hypocrisy they have on everything they do. They want more pharmaceuticals and are supporting big pharma with this piece of legislation with more government money, so more costs going to the pharmaceutical company, while accusing Conservatives of being in the pockets of big pharma. It is ridiculous.

119 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

May/6/24 5:49:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Souris—Moose Mountain, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to today's debate as we discuss Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, and its amendment. I think it is important to ensure that Canadians truly understand what the piece of legislation before us is and how it might affect them in the future. In fact if we read the amendment that has been put forward, we see that it states: 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. Unfortunately, much of what I am about to talk about in dealing with what the government has put forward is that we need to determine that it is going to be to the detriment of most Canadians, thanks to the NDP-Liberal government, which only continues to make life harder for those who are just trying to get by in difficult times like these. Bill C-64 is yet another example of an empty promise put forth by the Liberals in an attempt to please the NDP and maintain power in this country. There is virtually nothing for the vast majority of Canadians. The document is a measly six pages long, much of which is preamble and definitions. I can almost guarantee that when Canadians were told that a pharmacare plan was coming, they were expecting a whole lot more than six pages that lack any of the necessary details like costs, timelines, formulary, which drugs are in and which drugs are out, and other relevant information. The reality is that the majority of Canadians, 79% of them, already have private health care insurance to cover their medications. Many of them are afraid of losing their plan. The legislation, however, has become typical of the Liberal-NDP coalition government. Let us have a quote: “Bragging is not doing.” I wonder who said that. I will get back to it. After eight years of empty promises, brags, Canadians have lost trust in the so-called leadership of the Prime Minister. He promised affordable housing, yet housing costs has doubled across the country. Bragging is not doing; let us remember that. The Prime Minister promised that the carbon tax would put more money in the pockets of taxpayers, yet 60% of Canadians are paying more because of that very tax. Bragging is not doing. In fact in 2019, his then environment minister promised Canadians that the carbon tax would not exceed $50 per tonne, stating that the price would not go up and that there is no secret agenda. However, after the election, the Liberals' hidden secret agenda came out, and the current carbon tax is at $80 per tonne and will be going up to a whopping $170 per tonne by 2030. How are Canadians supposed to believe anything the government says when it breaks promise after promise, to the detriment of its own people? It does not take much to see that the sad little bill before us is simply a Liberal attempt to cater to the NDP, which has been propping the Liberals up and keeping them in power since the last election. Since the pharmacare bill contains almost no details about how the program would actually work, I would like to touch on a similar plan that is about to be launched across Canada, more bragging, I hear. It is the Canadian dental care plan, which is set to start providing coverage. It is a great example of the Liberals' providing blatant misinformation to Canadians by omitting context. They will tell us that the plan is a huge success because 1.6 million seniors have already signed up to participate. What they do not tell us is that Canada has only about 26,500 dentists practising in total, and fewer than 10% of them have enrolled in the new dental care plan, which also includes dental hygienists. There are eight dentists enrolled in New Brunswick. Ontario has 65 and Nova Scotia has six. P.E.I. has zero and Manitoba has seven. This is just to name a few of the provinces. Why is that? There is too much paperwork and signing of contracts, to name just some of their concerns. Considering that Canada is already dealing with a massive shortage of doctors, the last thing taxpayers want to know and see, and have talked about many times, is the need to find yet another health care practitioner. That struggle is immense. Another hugely alarming issue with the Canadian dental care plan that is also a major concern with pharmacare is the lack of consultation the government held with the important industry players. When it comes to the dental issue, the provincial associations stated that the federal Liberals started consulting them only in late November, just one month before the program was announced. One dentist stated that dentists were brought in at the eleventh hour. They asked why we started so late and whether we were rushing into a program that maybe we should be putting the brakes on. Again, the lack of consultation has now become a hallmark of the NDP-Liberal government's agenda, as the Liberals also failed to consult with insurance industry stakeholders during the formulation of the pharmacare bill. If this is the Liberal track record on industry consultations that have the potential to greatly impact a key piece of legislation that would affect millions, then of course we need to be concerned that the same thing could happen with pharmacare. Misinformation is also something that needs to be top of mind when dealing with the NDP-Liberal government. Initially, the government's dental care plan was pitched as being free, and yet now we know that is not so. The program covers only some types of dental care, and it does not adequately pay providers in line with the fees that are recommended by the provincial and territorial guidelines. Will it be the same for pharmacare? One wonders. Canadians are going to be told not to worry, and then all of a sudden be required to pay for their medications despite the promises made by the government. Since the Liberals are completely inept at creating and implementing programs that actually work, this is unfortunately what Canadians have come to expect. Since the pharmacare plan was first announced in February, physicians across the country have been vocal about the concerns they have with how the plan would actually work. Since the bill itself contains almost no information, there is worry that instead of filling the gaps left by public and private health care coverage, the bill could actually create more gaps, with more Canadians falling through the cracks. There is also a lot of uncertainty over which drugs would make it onto the formulary. If there are extra steps involved in this, it would place an additional administrative burden on physicians, which is frankly the last thing Canada's health care system needs right now. Furthermore, as we are all aware, wait times for health care in this country are longer than they ever have been. Currently, there is a median wait time of 27.7 weeks between getting a referral from a general practitioner and the receipt of treatment. This is an almost 200% increase in wait times since 1993. We all know there are over six million Canadians without a family doctor, and we have overwhelmed emergency departments throughout Canada. Through ill-thought-out bills like the pharmacare one, the federal government would be burdening our physicians with even more paperwork and administration, instead of allowing them to provide the care that Canadians need. By increasing the administrative burden, there is also a concern that doctors, nurses and other health care providers would face greater instances of burnout, causing them to leave their professions altogether. A very important part that the government continues to ignore is that the provision and administration of health care falls under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. It is not the job of the federal government to make decisions on issues like drug coverage, which the bill could certainly allow for. We need to respect the authority of the provinces and the territories to do what is best for their populations, as this is not a situation where Ottawa knows best. One part of the bill that I personally take issue with is the fact that it would establish a committee of experts to make recommendations on pharmacare. The reason this concerns me is, yet again, the Liberals' track record when it comes to creating committees to create committees to create committees, ultimately doing nothing to address the issues they were created to address. Ultimately, given that the pharmacare bill is so short on any details, we still do not know how big the committee would be and what the qualifications of the members would be. If the Liberals failed so drastically with something like just transition, which affected a small portion of Canada's population, how is anyone supposed to believe that they would handle this? As an example, one year ago the Liberals pledged $1.4 billion for drugs for rare diseases, yet there is still no deal with the provinces. Therefore, once again, to quote the Prime Minister, “Bragging is not doing.” The NDP-Liberal coalition is all about brag and no action. Unfortunately, until the Liberals are out of office, Canadians will continue to pay the price of the Prime Minister's lack of leadership and his broken promises. It is time to end the bragging. It is time for a change, time to assist hard-working Canadians and time for a common-sense Conservative government.

1668 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

May/6/24 5:59:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about a lack of consultation around the dental care program. How much consultation did he do? Do members know what I did when the program was released? I wanted to make sure dentists in my riding knew about it. I wrote all of them a letter. My team followed up with them. We encouraged them to get involved. I visited a number of dentists. As a result, 41 dentists in my riding, which is more than half of them, are on the dental care program. How much consultation on the dental care program did the member do in his riding, or did he not care enough about his constituents to bother making sure that they knew they had access to the new service, regardless of which political party brought it?

135 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen

May/6/24 6:00:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member said he had 40 dentists sign up. Based on the numbers that I provided, 65 dentists in all of Ontario have signed up. It sounds like, in the Kingston area, most of the dentists have signed up for it. They are the only ones; it is interesting. The member should look at the number of dentists in Ontario. It is significantly more than 65. To answer his question, I did consult with my colleagues in my riding, because I do happen to be their colleague. I spent many years as a professional dealing with dentists. They are all asking whether the government is stepping forward to make socialized dental care in Canada so that all dentists would have to be mandated to apply and get paid what the government says.

134 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

May/6/24 6:01:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to our colleague's speech. I liked the “Ottawa knows best” criticism. It is true that Ottawa, usually after crises like the one we are currently in, always tends to centralize, to leverage its authority in order to achieve greater uniformity, to deploy its powers in a tentacle-like manner, spreading everywhere, and to impose its priorities, values and rules on the the provinces. That is also why I am not resisting the urge to rake my colleague over the coals for not supporting the Bloc Québécois's subamendment last week on opting out with full compensation.

108 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen

May/6/24 6:02:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize if I missed something in the translation, but I did not recognize an actual question in the statement by the member. I think, ultimately, as the member has indicated, that we need to remember the fact that health care is a provincial issue. Dental care is health care, and it is a provincial responsibility to deal with it. The provinces determine who the professionals will be and how they will be regulated. That is up to the professional bodies, whether it is for the dentists, the chiropractors, the physical therapists, the doctors or the dental hygienists. The plans are determined by the provinces, as Quebec has done. We need to recognize that and continue to focus on the fact that it is the provinces' responsibility to make those decisions; it is not for the federal government to invade and intrude in that area.

147 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

May/6/24 6:03:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it hilarious that the Conservatives are protecting big insurance companies. I find it particularly entertaining that the member and his party, which would not be affected by this, including with contraception, fight so diligently against the reproductive rights of people. I find it funny. Does the member support access to trauma-informed abortion care and access to reproductive rights, which would include free contraception care for those who do not have insurance and those who fall outside the programs, or does he think the Conservatives should just keep violating reproductive rights in real time as we are seeing in the House?

105 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 309