- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- Jun/3/24 4:17:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, on the member's comment, I apologize if I was not on my game and did not give him the fiery speech he was expecting, I will work on that for next time.
All I will say is that is a great suggestion. I am sure there is a really good answer to it and that committee could get down to it. I will say to the member that it is the first real question I have heard from that side that I have actually had to reflect on. I do not mind saying that maybe he has a good point. Let us have a debate on that rather than having a debate on the false narratives that are going on.
I know the members of the Bloc would say that they asked me the same thing, but the point is this: I believe that it is just like health care as it relates to physician care or hospital care, which is something that is established by the federal government and the actual implementation is done by the provinces. Can universal pharmacare get to that place and what the member is suggesting? Yes, it might be the case that one day that is where we can get to, but the standard has to be the same across the entire country. That is the really important thing and what I fear might be lacking if we allowed what he suggested to happen.
246 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 4:13:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad that when I said that, the message got across. I was not exactly sure how to phrase it, but it is exactly what the member is saying. That is what we are seeing. The member for Battle River—Crowfoot said, in his 20-minute speech, that the system would not be a good one because it would not be for these people or those people, and that therefore we need no system.
Conservatives do the same thing on just about every issue. I do not know why they are doing this. I wanted to ask the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, if he does not like the proposed pharmacare plan, to tell us about his pharmacare plan, because we know they do not have one.
I just find it incredibly rich to continually hear Conservatives get up to talk down programs, almost implying that they would bring along an even better program. However, I think there is nobody in this room, and no Canadian who looks at this stuff objectively, who would think that Conservatives would be interested in a pharmacare plan, because we know they would not be.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to such an important piece of legislation, our national pharmacare bill, Bill C-64, which was introduced by the member for Ajax, the minister responsible for health care. In my opinion, this particular legislation is a long time coming. When health care, what Canadians have become accustomed to in Canada, was first introduced many decades ago, I think that there was always an expectation that Canada would follow suit with a pharmacare piece of legislation.
Indeed, it is my understanding that Canada is the only country in the world that has a health care plan that does not also have a pharmacare plan. I think that it is incredibly important that this piece of legislation is here. I have been listening to the debate over the last number of weeks regarding this particular bill, and I have found it quite interesting what I have heard in the House about it.
For starters, I want to say that it is a piece of legislation that I see as a starting point. It is a point at which we can start to implement a national pharmacare plan, in particular to help some of the most vulnerable Canadians get access to medications they need. I will address that point in more detail in a moment. More importantly, this is a starting point in the sense that we will start by having two major medications that Canadians use, medications for diabetes and contraceptives for individuals who require them.
I say that because I know that almost four million people in Canada are currently using medications for diabetes. This piece of legislation, even though it is only a starting point covering two specific medications, would certainly have an impact on so many people in our country. With the portion that is just for diabetes, that is nearly four million people on its own.
Bill C-64 would establish a framework, and that is the important thing. It is a framework toward a national universal pharmacare plan in Canada for certain prescription drugs and related products, including free coverage of contraception and diabetes medication, as I have already mentioned. The bill would also provide that the Canadian drug agency work toward the development of a national formula to develop a national bulk purchasing strategy and support the publication of a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription medications.
I think that the part regarding the bulk purchasing strategy is so incredibly important because this is where Canadians would see the benefit of having a national pharmacare plan. The idea that we can, as a whole country, purchase medications in bulk would give us that purchasing power that I think is needed to be able to make the purchases at a fair price, a price point that we as Canadians will ultimately be paying for through our taxes.
Finally, the last part of the bill is that, within 30 days of receiving royal assent, the minister would need to establish a committee of experts to make recommendations regarding the operation and financing of national universal single-payer pharmacare. The committee would be required to provide its report of recommendations to the minister no later than one year after the bill receives royal assent.
As I indicated earlier, when one talks about a program that is this big and this complex, it is important to have that proper oversight and to have a committee of experts making recommendations to the government on how to proceed. When we talk about the number of people who would be impacted by this, I find the conversation in the House to be really interesting, and this is something I alluded to a few moments ago, because it would be a benefit that everybody would be covered under the program. The reason why I say that is that I think it is very easy to make comments, such as I have heard from Conservatives in particular, that so many people are already covered. There are already people who are covered under their private plans. I think about 80% of people are covered in one way or another.
However, not everybody is covered in the exact same way. For starters, at least 20% of people are not covered under any plan, and these would be the most vulnerable because these are people who would have to go to the drug store to pay for their medication out of pocket. On the other end of the spectrum, there are a lot of people who are fully covered, and there are some really good plans out there. There are some really good employers. There are some really good institutions that provide plans to their employees and family members that are going to cover a lot, up to, in many cases, 100% of the cost of medication. Then, there is everything in between concerning what the coverage is and how much coverage there is. This is why it is so important that we talk about universal coverage. Sure, 80% of people might have some degree of coverage, but not everybody is covered the exact same way. I think it is extremely important that everybody has the same basic universal coverage.
When we look at the way we are treated when we go into hospitals, everybody is treated the exact same way. At least, it is supposed to be this way, and it could be argued that provinces are setting up things differently. If we go into a hospital emergency room, we will see triage. The hospital will determine the critical nature of a person's visit, how quickly a person needs to be dealt with, and everybody is treated the exact same way. Most importantly, when we are done and when we leave the hospital, we just go home. There is no one asking for a credit card or a billing address. We have the luxury of having a health care system that covers everybody, which does not ask people to pay when they are in, quite frankly, what would be their most vulnerable state.
I think one of the problems with my generation, and generations after mine and a few before, would be that the idea of having to pay for medical care seems almost foreign. It certainly does to me. I never think to myself, “Wow, I should go get this checked out, but what's it going to cost me to do that?” That is never something that enters my mind.
Members can just imagine that, if I were living in the United States, for example, there would be a lot of people who actually have to make that choice. They say, “Well, I should get checked out, but what is it going to cost me to do that?” This is one of those luxuries that we have with a single universal health care system such that we have here in Canada. It is not something that enters our mind because I think we believe, as a society, that there is a certain onus to take care of each other when it comes to our health care, which is what our health care system provides, notwithstanding the fact that we could get particular about what different provinces are attempting to do now. However, that is the reality of the situation.
When we talk about pharmacare and the drugs that we also need to be healthy, we have to ask ourselves why they are not treated the exact same way. What I see with the bill before us is an attempt to move in that direction.
There are two very important, or at least very popular, medications that a lot of Canadians use to start with. This comes from the same premise that, when somebody needs to take care of diabetes, for example, or somebody wants access to contraceptive medication, they should not have to filter into the equation of the decision whether they would have to pay for it, for starters, as 20% of the population would, or how much of it they would have to pay for. They should not have to ask, “Do I have to pay for a portion of it? Does my coverage only cover 60%, and so I have to pay 40%? Does that make it worthwhile to do this?” Canadians should not have to think that perhaps they could go against their doctor's advice and not get the medication because they think they will be fine.
These questions should not be asked by Canadians. There are a lot of seniors out there who rely on a lot of medications who should not have to say, “I have to make a decision between getting the medication I need or buying food.” They should not be making those choices, and they should not be saying that maybe they will only take half the dosage they have been prescribed because at least then they are still taking something but are not spending as much.
When we talk about health care and pharmacare, it is my position that it should be treated in the same way that we talk about health care and accessing care in terms of going to see a physician or going to the hospital. That is why I think the pharmacare bill is so important, because, as I said, it certainly does not cover every drug. It actually covers only two very important and widely used drugs, but it sets the framework for how things can evolve from here.
One of the things I find really interesting, when we are having this discussion about universality and the fact that it is just two pieces of very important medication, is what I have been hearing from Conservatives to this point. They are getting upset over the fact that it would not cover a lot and a lot of people would not be covered. They are basically saying that more should be invested. I have heard the member from Battle River—Crowfoot talking about how we are not doing enough. Nonetheless, they will still vote against the bill.
I cannot help but wonder why they are saying we need to do more, but then are against the idea fundamentally. I do not know whether Conservatives are doing what we have seen them do a number of times before, which is to start by talking about a piece of legislation and trying to critique it all day long, only to then vote in favour of it when the time comes, or whether they have a plan for universal pharmacare that is even more ambitious than this one. I find myself somewhere in between, trying to figure out what they are really trying to get at with this.
At the end of the day, we know that this is something that would help Canadians. We know, and I strongly believe, that the concept of having a universal pharmacare system, in the long run to cover many more drugs, is certainly my goal. That would be to the great benefit of all Canadians.
The legislation is a huge step forward in delivering better health care to Canadians. As I said, it lays out the plan for universal single-payer coverage for contraception and for diabetes medication. This would mean nine million women and gender-diverse Canadians all across the country could get access to the contraception and reproductive autonomy that they deserve.
Notwithstanding the fact that lately we have heard some Conservatives start to talk and to reopen discussions about reproductive autonomy from decades ago, the reality is that we believe that when somebody makes choices about what to do with their body, in particular when it comes to reproductive aspects, they should be able to make those choices. A woman should be able to make those choices. In my opinion, the government should be there to support them in making whatever choice they think is the best for them as an individual.
Although the piece of legislation before us, as I previously said, would not cover every medication, or a lot more medication as I would ultimately like to see, it certainly would be a starting point, a place to begin. It would be a place to lay the groundwork. It would be a place to engage the experts to provide feedback as to how we could move forward. It would allow us to start somewhere significant, given the number of Canadians it would affect, and then from there, to grow.
I am really looking forward to the day when we can say that our pharmacare and the medications that Canadians depend on so much will be treated in the exact same manner that we see in the rest of our health care system, in particular when we go to visit a doctor or we have to go to an emergency room, as I described earlier.
I really hope Conservatives vote in favour of this at the end of the day, despite some of what I have been hearing. This is a great opportunity to show the country that the bill is not something we will make political and that it is something that truly would benefit many Canadians. It would help the 20% or so of people who might not have some degree of coverage. It would equalize the very well-off people with some of the most vulnerable in our communities by saying it does not matter what one's socio-economic status is and it does not matter what one's income level is. We respect the fact that all Canadians should have access to the medications they need so badly, and that their doctors, through our health care system, could provide it to them.
2308 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 9:10:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the topic of pharmacare specifically, one reason it is so critically important is that if we are going to have a health care program to support people and take care of people when they get to the hospital, which is part of the health care programs throughout the country, we may as well be taking care of them in the preventative stages. If we, as the minister alluded to, set up programs to help people take care of themselves, such as pharmacare and getting them access to the medicine they need, we can avoid having a lot of people end up in the hospital.
Likewise, when we look at these particular programs, we know they are not being fully used. A lot of people, especially seniors, up until recently, because they did not have access to the medicines they needed, may have been making very difficult decisions about whether they should take half the dose they were recommended instead of the full dose because they can save a bit of money there.
Can the minister explain and touch on why it is so critically important to make sure that people are taking the full doses they are prescribed, rather than trying to find ways to save money by reducing their doses?
214 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 4:32:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for starters, we call them “Conservatives”. They have the same colour of blue, and they use the same name, but I would argue that this is actually the Reform Party. I think that it is entirely appropriate to question whether or not they are even Conservatives because, quite frankly, although she is no longer with us, I am sure that Flora MacDonald, who was from Kingston and the Islands, would look at the Conservative Party and would say that it really is not what she represented when she was in this place.
However, the member brought up the Conservatives' position on pharmacare. I was here to listen to that debate on pharmacare. Do members know how many Conservatives got up and said that only one in five Canadians want this? It is as though one in five Canadians needing something does not qualify us to actually do something about it.
To answer the member's question about the motivation of the Conservatives, they know that those one in five Canadians are not who they are banking on to vote for them. They know that those one in five Canadians are some of the most vulnerable in our communities who actually really need access to pharmacare, and they are willing to brush them aside because they know that they are not contained within the four out of five who they actually do rely on for their votes.
240 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 9:48:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have heard a number of Conservatives say the same thing today. They keep saying that only one out of five Canadians wants the legislation; only one out of five Canadians wants pharmacare.
If one out of five Canadians is not good enough for Conservatives—
48 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
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
- Feb/29/24 5:12:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not misinformation and disinformation. The Conservatives ran on getting rid of the child care program. The Leader of the Opposition has bragged about the fact that they got rid of these programs in the past, but why should Canadians not be skeptical of it, when the Conservatives also ran on a price on pollution and now are suddenly against it?
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 5:10:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if he does not know, it is because he is probably confused by the fact that the Conservatives are always doing that on so many issues. They did it on scab legislation. They were extremely critical of that, but then when it came time to vote for it, just quietly they all stood up in favour. We were actually really surprised.
It is the exact same thing with this particular piece of legislation. We hear the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, who keeps standing up and criticizing the government, routinely hammering away at the fact that this is a horrible program. Every Conservative who gets up does the exact same thing, but then when it comes time to vote, they vote in favour of it.
I will just recap that. They ran on a platform to get rid of the child care program. The Conservative leader has bragged about the fact that they have killed child care agreements in the past, and then the Conservatives get in here and are extremely critical about it, which would all lead to suggest they are against it. Then at the last moment, they vote in favour of it.
I think Canadians can reflect on that and understand and appreciate what the Conservatives would actually do if they were in government.
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 4:43:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what we find very ironic now is that Conservatives are suddenly saying 77% of people do not need this. They are asking why we are providing it. Our point is that is what the difference between the Canada child benefit and the former Stephen Harper universal child care benefit is all about. It is about means-testing.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:40:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can respect the fact the Bloc member and I disagree, but when he shouted out afterward that I do not care about them, it is categorically false. I am giving my position on this.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 4:43:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not support any form of privatization as it relates to our health care system. I explained in my speech why I value it so much.
If the member is correct in his assertions that various things that have led to it have occurred, then we need to do something about that, but grandstanding in the way the NDP has done in this motion is not the way to do it.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 1:47:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I disappointed the Bloc by not bringing up health care transfers because that is the only thing its members ever really want to talk about in here.
I will say that my concern for the NDP was laid out very clearly. I am concerned that the NDP would vote in favour of a motion that has a whereas clause basically saying that we have too many public servants working for the government. That is my concern.
I did not say they had to haphazardly follow the government like a lapdog, as the member suggested. I laid out exactly what my concern was. The member is trying to suggest I am doing something other than that, and that is simply not the case.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what the member is saying is right. That is the impression that would be given to somebody who is paying attention to what is going on in the House.
To the member's point, he is absolutely right that there is no program that covers all children under 12. In fact, I hope the program does not stop there. I hope that one day there will be a dental care program similar to the health care program where everybody is covered. That is where we ultimately need to get. When the founders of our health care system created it, there was an understanding that pharmacare and dental care were on the horizon, that those things would happen in the future, and yet here we are so many decades later still waiting.
I applaud the NDP's passion for this and continually pushing for it. I am glad that we can work together on this. I hope this is not the end and that we can continue to see dental care expand not just to the criteria that we are seeing here, but, indeed, to more Canadians in the years to come.
194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I do not care whose idea it was. I do not care if it was the NDP's idea to increase the GST, or if it was done through negotiations or whatever. We are helping Canadians. It does not really matter at the end of the day. I doubt the individual who is receiving the cheque in time to help buy more groceries really cares that it was the NDP that pushed for this, nor do they care that the Leader of the Opposition fought for various different parts of this. All they care about is what supports their government is giving them in their time of need. If the NDP members want to take credit for it, they can fill their boots, because I am perfectly fine with that. My position on this is that we help Canadians to the best of our ability.
To his question about corporate greed, which the NDP continually brings up, I am not shying away from the topic. I hear the NDP bring it up a lot. I would love to hear more about it. If the member for Burnaby South wants to sit down with me and explain his positions on it more and talk about what he thinks some of the solutions should be, I am more than willing to listen.
224 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
