Bill C-64

Pharmacare Act

An Act respecting pharmacare

This enactment sets out the principles that the Minister of Health is to consider when working towards the implementation of national universal pharmacare and obliges the Minister to make payments, in certain circumstances, in relation to the coverage of certain prescription drugs and related products. It also sets out certain powers and obligations of the Minister — including in relation to the preparation of a list to inform the development of a national formulary and in relation to the development of a national bulk purchasing strategy — and requires the Minister to publish a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription drugs and related products. Finally, it provides for the establishment of a committee of experts to make certain recommendations.

Pharmacare Act

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

moved that Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C‑64.

It is a great pleasure to join the debate today about the pharmacare legislation that is going to bring in the first steps of pharmacare in Canada, as well as to be the last person to give a speech before we actually vote on this important piece of legislation.

Quality health care, including access to prescription drugs, is vital to protecting and promoting the health and well-being of Canadians. Prescription medicines allow millions of Canadians to prevent and fight disease, manage chronic illness, ease pain and breathe better; in other words, they allow Canadians to live healthier and more productive lives. I must say, there are few issues that I hear more about than health care. It is a priority for my constituents.

With rising costs, some Canadians are facing difficult choices between paying for their prescriptions and covering essentials, such as food and heat. Nobody should be put in that circumstance. We need to ensure that prescription drugs are more accessible and affordable for Canadians, including those facing the greatest financial barriers to accessing medications. That is why our government has introduced the pharmacare act. The bill proposes foundational principles for national universal pharmacare and describes the government's intent to work with provinces and territories to provide Canadians with universal, single-payer, first-dollar coverage for a range of contraceptive and diabetes products.

When medicare was introduced in Canada in the 1960s, prescription drugs played a relatively limited role in health care. Most drugs outside of a hospital were inexpensive medicines for common conditions. However, in the intervening decades, the development of drugs has surged as pharmaceutical companies have pushed the science further in search of new treatments and cures. Prescription medicines are now an essential part of health care. As a share of overall health care costs, spending on prescribed drugs has risen from six per cent in 1975 to nearly 14% in 2022. This makes prescription drugs the second-largest area of health care spending in Canada, after hospital services.

Today, the landscape of prescription drugs available in Canada is robust and complex, with pharmaceutical companies launching dozens of new products every year. To support effective management, in government-run, public drug plans in Canada, as well as some privately run plans, a formulary is developed, which is a list of drugs and related products that are eligible for coverage under the drug plan. To develop the formularies, public plans consider both how well a drug works and whether these products offer good value for money relative to other treatment options. While there are over a hundred public plans in Canada, there is generally good alignment with regard to the list of drugs that are eligible for coverage across provinces and territories.

Many Canadians are only eligible for public drug coverage with high deductibles or premiums that provide little relief for more routine drug expenses, such as for prescribed contraception and diabetes medications. A national formulary would outline the scope of prescription drugs and related products that all Canadians should have affordable access to under national universal pharmacare.

In 2019, the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, chaired by Dr. Eric Hoskins, recommended a national formulary service, one of the standards for national universal pharmacare. He proposed pharmacare coverage to be phased in, starting with a short list of essential medicines. In budget 2019, the government announced funding for a number of foundational steps towards national pharmacare, including the development of a national formulary. Back in 2022, the government announced continued progress towards this by introducing a pharmacare act and tasking the drug agency to develop a national formulary of essential medicines and a bulk purchasing plan. Preliminary work has already been completed, and a framework and process for developing a future national formulary was recommended.

The panel released its final report in 2022, including giving guiding principles for the formulary and a process for bringing it into place, as well as a sample list of commonly prescribed drugs and related products for three therapeutic areas with a high volume of drug use in Canada. These are cardiovascular disease, diabetes and mental illness. This list has been expanded by looking at equity-seeking groups to make sure that we are closing the gaps in access between different communities in Canada.

Actually, this foundational work is already having real-world impacts. In 2021, our government announced that it would work with the Province of Prince Edward Island on the improving affordable access to prescription drugs initiative. Under this initiative, P.E.I. is receiving funding to add new drugs to its list of publicly covered drugs and to lower the out-of-pocket costs for island residents.

I just want to say that, with the legislation, P.E.I. residents have already saved $2 million in out-of-pocket costs on more than 230,000 prescriptions, and the savings continue. Our government remains firmly committed to taking the next steps in pharmacare, and the legislation today is going to help us do that by providing coverage for contraception and diabetes medicine. This is part of our overall approach to support the provinces to improve health care in Canada, including with a new deal we signed with all the provinces last year to provide better care, as well as making it easier to get access to such things as a medical practitioner in rural areas, including where I live, by providing student loan forgiveness for people to operate there.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to address Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare. It is an act with respect to pharmacare, and yet it would cover only diabetes and contraception. As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I can say that the bill, which is really more of a pamphlet than a real piece of legislation, has been the main focus of committee for the last month or so, about as long as it took for the government to draft the legislation.

It is important to make sure that Canadians know what the pamphlet really is and, more importantly, what it is not, since many people are under the impression that Bill C-64 would mean free medications for all Canadians. This is absolutely not the case. Despite what the NDP-Liberal coalition is claiming, the pamphlet would do very little to improve the lives of the majority of Canadians, and overall it could have more negative impacts than positive.

One huge issue that I have with Bill C-64 is the way that it was rammed through Parliament so quickly. Typically when legislation comes to committee, we are given ample time to hear from witnesses and to read all the briefs, submissions and recommendations from stakeholders on the legislation. This is extremely important, as there are many groups that have valuable insight and input on issues as major as pharmacare. We on this side of the House believe that they all deserve to be heard and considered, yet due to closure on what Canadians think should be a piece of legislation intervening in provincial domains, it was rushed through.

When it comes to matters that would potentially affect a huge portion of the population, due consideration must be given to the opinions of experts. This is not an issue that should be handled by “Ottawa knows best”, which the Liberal-NDP coalition so often does. The Liberals think they know better than the professionals who are said to be the most impacted by the pharmacare pamphlet, so they are fine with pushing the weak legislation through. Why is that? It is because they want to be able to tell Canadians that they gave them universal pharmacare, even though that is blatant misinformation because what the bill would provide is anything but universal.

There were 10 hours of committee time to hear from witnesses with respect to Bill C-64, which was not nearly enough time to cover all the industries, organizations and individuals who would be affected by the poor piece of legislation before us. My inbox was inundated with emails from groups that were pleading with the government to have a chance to give their input at committee. However, because the NDP-Liberals were so desperate to ram Bill C-64 through Parliament, their voices were not heard.

It astounds me that the costly coalition is trying to tout the pamphlet as being historic and groundbreaking, when the Liberals neglected to listen to the very people who would be most impacted by the shoddy work of the file. Many groups who were fortunate enough to appear at committee said they were not consulted by the NDP-Liberals before or during the development of the pharmacare pamphlet. In what world is this acceptable?

It is not just the medical field that the NDP-Liberal coalition failed to consult in advance. One of the biggest industries that would have to deal with all of the changes caused by Bill C-64 is the insurance industry. We were fortunate to be able to hear from some industry representatives on the matter at committee. Mr. Stephen Frank, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, made some important observations.

Mr Frank said, “The Minister of Health has stated that people who have an existing drug plan are going to continue to enjoy the access they have to their drugs. If that's the minister's intent it's not...clear from this bill. As many of the questions reinforced today, its text is ambiguous, it repeatedly calls for universal, single-payer, pharmacare in Canada with no mention of workplace benefit plans. Read in its entirety the bill could result in practical, and even legal, barriers to our ability to provide Canadians with the drug benefits that they currently have.

“For the majority of Canadians, therefore, this plan, as it's currently written, risks disrupting existing prescription drug coverage paid for by employers, limiting choice, and using scarce federal resources to simply replace existing coverage while leaving a huge gap for uninsured Canadians who rely on other medications beyond diabetic drugs and contraceptives.”

There are a number of different drug insurance plans out there: government-sponsored plans, employer-sponsored plans, association-sponsored plans and private plans. The Conference Board of Canada found that 36.8 million Canadians, or 97.2%, are eligible for some form of prescription drug coverage. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce indicates that the uninsured population is 1.1 million, or 2.8%, and 3.8 million are eligible but not enrolled. That is basically 4.9 million, a little over roughly 10% of the population, yet Statistics Canada in 2019 indicated that 86.2% of Canadians are covered by at least one type of drug insurance.

When an issue as important as access to medications and prescriptions comes up, it is the minister's job to ensure that all policies are clear and comprehensive and that all possible implications have been considered. Obviously, this is not being done with Bill C-64.

Another witness who appeared at committee and had concerns about the clarity of this bill was Carolyne Eagan, the principal representative for the Smart Health Benefits Coalition. She stated, “thousands of our advisers have received thousands of phone calls and engaged discussion with the misperception that people can go ahead and cancel their plan and essentially replace it by the free plan, not knowing what is on that list of coverage and who it's intended for.

“My own mother, who's turning 80 this year, got her letter. She was completely confused and figured she would cancel her plan and have free coverage with everything included. Luckily, I'm in the business and could explain it to her.

“It is a risk and there's a great risk of employers and Canadians thinking they would lose access to a longer list of medications where their health is stable on the treatment plan that they have been prescribed. Losing that access puts everything at risk. It puts the sustainability and health of Canadians and families, and our workforce and productivity, at great risk.”

This is alarming to say the very least. How many seniors in this country are going to lose their private insurance plan because the NDP-Liberal coalition failed to be clear about what the pamphlet would actually do and cover? How many seniors might have already cancelled their plan? What will stop employers from cancelling the benefit plan they offer and telling their employees to use universal pharmacare, which covers medication for only two things?

These are the questions that were asked at committee, yet the minister was unable to answer. Even more alarming is that only 44% of new drugs launched globally are distributed in Canada, and only 20% of them are covered by public plans. According to a study by Innovative Medicines Canada, which, by the way, asked to present at committee and was denied.

The fact of the matter is that the minister came to committee and gave blatant misinformation to Canadians, telling them that everything is going to be okay and that they must just trust him. After nine years of the Prime Minister's ruining our country, it is absurd that he is expecting public trust. The NDP-Liberal coalition has broken promise after promise, and somehow the minister thinks that he deserves or is entitled to something as sacred as the trust of Canadians.

One of the briefs that was received at committee was sent by Chris MacLeod, a 54-year-old lawyer who has cystic fibrosis. This disease is one that hits home very personally, and I am grateful to Mr. MacLeod for sharing his experiences with public drug plans in this country. He stated that unfortunately Bill C-64 looks like it could be another major barrier to access for patients, especially those with rare diseases, and that notably, the federal government's attempt to force substandard public formulary coverage on everyone across the country could prove to be a disaster, with potentially deadly consequences.

People who live with diseases like cystic fibrosis do not deserve to have their life made even more difficult because of incompetence with respect to the bill. The bottom line is that most Canadians already have solid drug plans that they are happy with and they do not want to have them replaced.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-64 would establish the framework of a national universal pharmacare program here in Canada. It is phase one of the proposed program, which would include prescription drugs and free coverage for contraceptives and diabetes medication, and we are hoping to expand the program.

As well, there are additional elements that would complement the national pharmacare program, which is our national strategy for drugs for rare diseases. Again, it is starting with a $1.5-billion investment over three years. I believe our intention is that we will be expanding it in the years to come.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to stand once again today to speak to this very important bill. Bill C-64 is an act respecting pharmacare.

The bill contains three key sections. One, it would establish a framework toward a national universal pharmacare in Canada for certain prescription drugs and related products. Two, it provides that the Canadian drug agency work toward the development of a national formulary to develop a national bulk-purchasing strategy and support the publication of a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription medications. The third section is that, within 30 days of hopefully this bill receiving royal assent, the minister would establish a committee of experts to make recommendations regarding the operation and financing of national, universal, single-payer pharmacare.

The bill, along with other investments made by our government, would help millions of Canadians who are struggling to pay for their prescription drugs. Since this bill was introduced, we have heard many facts about access and affordability of prescription drugs within Canada. We know that Statistics Canada data from 2021 has indicated that one in five Canadians reported not having enough insurance to cover the cost of prescription medication in the previous 12 months.

We know that having no prescription insurance coverage was associated with higher out-of-pocket spending and higher non-adherence to prescriptions because of cost. We know that this results in some Canadians having to choose between paying for these medications or for other basic necessities, like food and housing. This is why we have consistently made commitments toward national pharmacare and have focused efforts on the key areas of accessibility, affordability and appropriate use of medications.

Let me start with the pharmacare act, which references the foundational principles of access, affordability, appropriate use and universality. We have heard a lot about these four principles this evening, but it is important to continue this conversation. Bill C-64 recognizes the critical importance of working with provinces and territories, which are responsible for the administration of health care. It also outlines our intent to work with these partners to provide universal, single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications.

This legislation is an important step forward to improve health equity, affordability and outcomes, and has the potential of long-term savings to the health care system. In our most recent budget, budget 2024, we announced $1.5 billion over seven years to support the launch of national pharmacare and coverage for contraception and diabetes medications. I would like to highlight the potential impact the two drug classes for which we are seeking to provide coverage under this legislation would have on Canadians.

We have heard of stories or know of someone in our constituency who is struggling to access diabetes medications or supplies due to lack of insurance coverage through their work, or of an individual who has limited insurance coverage so they cannot choose the form of contraception that is better suited for her.

For example, let us talk about a part-time, uninsured worker who has type 1 diabetes and is also of reproductive age. For this individual to manage her diabetes, it would cost her up to $18,000 every year, leaving her potentially unable to afford the $500 upfront cost of her preferred method of contraception, a hormonal IUD. With the introduction of this legislation, this individual would save money on costs associated with managing her diabetes and would be able to access a hormonal IUD at no cost, with no out-of-pocket expenses, once the legislation is implemented in her province.

Studies have demonstrated that publicly funded, no-cost universal contraception can result in public cost savings. Evidence from the University of British Columbia estimated that no-cost contraception has the potential to save the B.C. health care system approximately $27 million per year. Since April 1, 2023, B.C. is the only province in Canada to provide universal free contraceptives to all residents under the B.C. pharmacare program. In the first eight months of this program, more than 188,000 people received free contraceptives. That is wonderful.

With respect to diabetes, it is a complex disease that can be treated with safe and effective medications. One in four Canadians with diabetes has reported not following their treatment plan due to costs. Improving access to diabetes medications would help improve the health of some of the 3.7 million Canadians living with diabetes and reduce the risk of serious, life-changing health complications, such as blindness or amputations.

Beyond helping people with managing their diabetes and living healthier lives, we also know that, if left untreated or poorly managed, diabetes can lead to high and unnecessary costs on the health care system due to diabetes and its complications, including heart attack, stroke and kidney failure. The full cost of diabetes to the health care system could exceed almost $40 billion by 2028, as estimated by Diabetes Canada.

The bill demonstrates the Government of Canada's commitment to consulting widely on the way forward and working with provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, and other partners and stakeholders to improve the accessibility, affordability and appropriate use of pharmaceutical products by reducing financial barriers and contributing to physical and mental health and well-being.

Beyond our recent work under Bill C-64, I would like to highlight one or two initiatives, depending on my time, that the government has also put in place to support our efforts towards national pharmacare.

On a national level, our government has launched the first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases in March 2023, with an investment of up to $1.5 billion over three years. As part of the overall $1.5-billion investment, our government will make available up to $1.4 billion over three years to willing provinces and territories through bilateral agreements. This funding would help provinces and territories improve access to new and emerging drugs for Canadians with rare diseases, as well as support enhanced access to existing drugs, early diagnosis and screening for rare diseases.

I would also like to highlight another initiative under way, which involves the excellent work by P.E.I. through a $35-million federal investment. Under this initiative, P.E.I. is working to improve the affordable access of prescription drugs, while at the same time informing the advancement of national universal pharmacare.

The work accomplished by P.E.I. has been remarkable. Since December of last year, P.E.I. has expanded access to over 100 medications to treat a variety of conditions, including heart disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis and cancer. In addition, effective June 1, 2023, P.E.I. reduced copays to $5 for almost 60% of medications regularly used by island residents. I am pleased to share that through this initiative, P.E.I. residents have saved over $2.8 million in out-of-pocket expenses as of March of this year.

Finally, on December 18, 2023, the Government of Canada announced the creation of Canada's drug agency, with an investment of $89.5 million over five years, beginning this year. Built from the existing Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, and in partnership with provinces and territories, the CDA will provide the dedicated leadership and coordination needed to make Canada's drug system more sustainable and better prepared for the future, helping Canadians achieve better health outcomes. I am pleased to share that as of May 1, CADTH has been officially launched as Canada's drug agency.

In closing, we can see the extraordinary amount of work that has been and will continue to be dedicated to our commitments related to national pharmacare that focuses on accessibility, affordability and appropriate use of medications.

Bill C-64 represents the next phase of helping Canadians receive the medications they need, and we look forward to working with all parliamentarians to ensure its successful passing.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, before I begin my speech, I will take this opportunity to congratulate Sharon DeSousa, who just became the first racialized national president at the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I first met her when the Iqaluit Housing Authority Inuit workers had their 136 days of striking to advance the rights of workers, not just for Iqalummiut, but also abroad. I am excited about Sharon's election.

I will get to my speech. As the member of Parliament for Nunavut, Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, put me in a bit of a personal dilemma. I wondered if I should support a bill that would do too little for the majority of my constituents. Through my speech this evening, I will share how I came to support the importance of this bill.

As an Inuk from Nunavut, I continue to see the impacts of what happens when the federal government purposefully underinvests in indigenous peoples. The lack of investing in housing means that people live in overcrowded housing conditions. Many live in mouldy homes. These conditions create poorer health outcomes and deep-rooted social issues, such as increased violence, substance abuse and the continuation of intergenerational trauma being passed on to our children and our grandchildren.

Having lived through these hurdles, I am always analyzing bills and debates with sensitivity to how all too common my experience is for indigenous peoples in Canada. I know all too well what it means to suffer. I hope when Canadians hear me, that they do their part to act on reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

When I became the member of Parliament for Nunavut, I learned to act on solidarity. Before I was an MP, it was just a word. I wholeheartedly thank my colleague and friend, the member of Parliament for Hamilton Centre. This is what I am doing in supporting this bill. I am compelled to act knowing this bill, when it is passed, will help so many Canadians. It will help women and gender-diverse people access contraceptives. It will help many Canadians pay for diabetes medication.

On another note, I must express my view regarding the Bloc's position on this bill. Its main concern seems to be that of jurisdiction and telling the government to stay out of its jurisdiction. I do hope its members reconsider their position because, regardless of jurisdiction, this bill can help more Canadians. This bill sets a foundation to create a universal single-payer system across Canada.

This reminds me of Jordan's principle. I take this opportunity to honour the family of Jordan River Anderson, who this program is importantly named after. Jordan died a preventable death. He died while different jurisdictions were fighting over not having jurisdiction to cover his expenses and care. Because of Jordan's principle, care for first nations and Inuit has improved.

While the Liberal government's responses take too long and it allows funding to lapse, Jordan's principle has made significant impacts for Inuit and first nations. Bill C-64 is an opportunity to model Jordan's principle so women and gender-diverse people have immediate access to contraceptives and people with diabetes can stop stressing about their finances knowing they can rely on this program for diabetes medication.

I must share my criticism of the bill. I am dismayed to see that, once again, when it comes to indigenous peoples, we are forced to wait. While I appreciate that Bill C-64 would require the Minister of Health to initiate discussions based on essential medicines lists with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples, this work must start immediately.

While first nations and Inuit have the non-insured health benefits program to have services such as dental care, eye care and mental health services paid for, much of the investments in Nunavut go toward medical travel because of the lack of health care in Nunavut. Children are flown thousands of kilometres to access basic care and dental care. This program funds millions of dollars to the airline industry. Ensuring pharmacare improves on the NIHB program will be very important in making sure that Nunavummiut, northerners and indigenous peoples see better care closer to home.

The pharmacare bill must avoid the pitfalls that we have seen in NIHB. I remember, for example, my colleague and friend, the MP for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, bringing to me a witness when the indigenous and northern affairs committee studied the non-insured health benefits program. She brought forward a pharmacist, Rudy Malak, who struggled to get paid for providing eligible people the drugs covered under the non-insured health benefits program. The proposed act must ensure that pharmacists would be paid immediately without worrying about closing their doors because the federal government may take too long to pay its bills.

I conclude by reminding everyone that, when it comes to helping Canadians, we must do so with a foundation of removing barriers for people. As much as I am conflicted about the bill, I must practise what the MP for Hamilton Centre taught me about acting in solidarity, knowing that the passage of the bill will help so many Canadians.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-64. I think the provincial government has jurisdiction over health care and the federal government should butt out.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after the NDP House leader, let us get this back on track and talk about the pharmacare bill, Bill C-64. I am pretty happy to take to my feet. I did have the opportunity to sit in committee for five hours a couple days ago and listen to some of the witnesses and some of the comments and concerns around the pharmacare bill, Bill C-64. I want to put some of my concerns on the record. I see the former health minister and I am looking forward to hearing him talk about it, if he is going to get to his feet.

A year ago, I asked the former health minister how many provincial health ministers at an FPT meeting had asked to bring forward a pharmacare bill. Was it on the top of their priority list? At that time, the minister did not have an answer for me. In committee, a couple of days ago, I had the opportunity to ask the current health minister that exact same question. I do believe that health is a provincial jurisdiction.

My question was whether they were able to name any health ministers who proactively came to the federal government to ask for this bill to be brought forward or whether there were other requests.

I know, in Saskatchewan, that we have a shortage of nurses. We have a shortage of doctors. There are a lot of issues, and I think many provinces do have concerns around doctor and nurse shortages. I think we are short 30,000 doctors right now in Canada. That is a pretty big deal. I think around seven million Canadians do not have access to a family physician.

I think that is something that health ministers probably brought forward at the FPT meetings. I believe that is something that we do need to look at: how we can support our provincial partners and have that conversation.

Once again, the current health minister did not answer my question about whether this was a priority at FPT meetings. Tonight, I was able to ask that question again to the member from Winnipeg North. I asked if he could name a health minister who brought this pharmacare bill forward as a priority for the provinces. I have never seen him play hockey but he was pretty good at skating around that question. He went full circle, but he never really came to the crux of my question as to whether a health minister had asked for this.

This is not partisan rhetoric. This is a legitimate question around public policy and the priorities of provincial governments. I heard from my colleague from Victoria. She talked about a child who needed diabetes care. I listened to her speech and when I asked her if she could tell me the age of full coverage in Saskatchewan, she could not. That is a very real concern of mine, the fact that they are bringing forward this legislation and that people voting for this bill do not know what the different coverages are out there in different provinces.

That is a legitimate problem. We should know where the coverages are across the provinces. In my home province of Saskatchewan, I have been texting with our health minister, I asked him if this was one of the things he brought forward and he said no, that they just came to them and said they were going to do this, take it or leave it. Then they asked for details. The minister said that they never gave them any details because they did not have any yet. It is surprising for a provincial health minister to not have any details on a pharmacare bill. A pamphlet, in my opinion, is not a bill, as it is four pages long. It covers diabetes and contraceptives, but there is little detail given to our provincial partners and that is a legitimate concern that we have to discuss.

They rammed this through. They bring in time allocation and then they just expect everything to be okay. We all know that this is just what the NDP asked for to keep the government in power for a little bit more time. This is part of the supply and confidence deal. They continue to tell falsehoods to Canadians. It is not coverage; two things are being covered.

For NDP members to bring up Tommy Douglas in the House is laughable. He would be embarrassed by the NDP and the situation it is in right now. He would probably be a Conservative right now. He would be completely embarrassed by what the NDP, the rump of the NDP, has become: a bunch of activists. I think it is very funny whenever they bring forward the name of Tommy Douglas, because he probably rolls over in his grave when that happens.

Being from Saskatchewan, I also had a time to be in government, with the Saskatchewan Party and former premier Wall, which takes me to another point. The NDP-Liberal government continues to bring in bills and then it says it is going to do consultation. I think that is a little bit backward. I remember being in Saskatchewan, and I was a member of the all-party traffic safety committee. We travelled around Saskatchewan for a couple weeks, in all corners, and took feedback from all of the stakeholders.

We consulted. We gathered feedback. Then we made legislation. Is that not a novel idea? Talk to people, ask what is going on, ask what works and what does not work, and then put forward legislation, instead of bringing forward legislation and then asking if it can work. Sometimes, I just find that some of the things the government does are quite backwards. The same thing happened with nuclear consultations. We started nuclear consultations in Saskatchewan in the first term of 2007 and continued to talk to people and consult before we even got to the point of even the discussion of small nuclear reactors. That was how long we actually consulted with the people of Saskatchewan. Can members imagine having that approach here in this House, to continue to talk to people, instead of ramming things through based on political ideology and what people think they need to stay in power?

Getting back to my point about diabetes, I have a cousin who plays for Regina Thunder. He was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was two. That is why I am such a champion of diabetes care. His mother and father had to wake him up at night and prick his finger when he was a baby and when he was two or three years old. Then he would get insulin pills. Now he has tracking on his arm. He has a pump that is covered by the province of Saskatchewan. That is progress. That is how to listen to people and get things done. I think that is what we should take forward.

The NDP have talked about compassion. Where is their compassion for the 27 million Canadians who have insurance, but who are scared right now that they are going to have less coverage? I know 1.1 million Canadians are under-insured. We can take care of them.

Just imagine if one of the health ministers of the NDP-Liberal government went to a provincial-territorial meeting and asked how to get people insured under their provincial programs. What is the need out there? The Liberal government of the day wants to take credit for everything. There did not have to be a national program. Imagine if it had worked with its provincial partners and then supplemented their programs? Maybe the provinces would have needed extra money. I guarantee that it would not have cost $1 billion or $2 billion. This program is going to cost $2 billion.

There are several public policy reasons why this bill should not go forward in the form it is in. We should continue to work with our provincial partners. I would love for one of these ministers of health to answer how many provincial health ministers asked for this program to come forward. The same could be said for the dental plan.

Today is a pretty special day in my life. On May 30, 1944, my father, Ron Steinley, was born. I am not able to be home with him, but I want to wish him a very happy 80th birthday. He is in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. I am going to try and rip out there, maybe this week or next week, so we can take him out for supper. Happy birthday to my dad and all the best.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in Amendment

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always like listening to my colleague.

It seems to me that Bloc Québécois MPs should at least listen to Quebeckers. There are at least two million of them united in the largest coalition in Quebec. They are specifically asking that Bill C‑64 be passed by the federal government. They are very critical of the current pharmacare situation in Quebec. They talk about co-payments. They talk about all the problems that exist in Quebec. All the community and union organizations are asking the federal government not to give in to the provinces and territories that are asking for an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation. They are saying that because they want Bill C‑64 to pass.

Why is the Bloc Québécois not listening to Quebeckers?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate Bill C-64 at third reading. It will come as no surprise to anyone when I say that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. I am the last person from the Bloc Québécois who will be rising today to speak to this bill on pharmacare. We will soon be voting on it and we will see whether it passes.

What we have been saying repeatedly in the House is simple. What the Bloc Québécois wants is for the federal government to stop interfering in provincial jurisdictions. We want the money to be transferred to Quebec with no strings attached and we want full financial compensation. We want health transfers. That is what we want, and that is what we will continue to hammer home. I feel like I have to keep repeating myself in the House and that is not right. All the Bloc Québécois wants is to defend Quebeckers' rights and to simply get the money we send to the federal level back so that we can improve the pharmacare program that we already have in Quebec.

When this bill was being studied in committee, the Bloc Québécois proposed an important amendment. It read as follows:

(4) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a province or territory may elect not to participate in national universal pharmacare, in which case that province or territory remains unconditionally entitled to receive payments in order to maintain the accessibility and affordability of the prescription drugs and related products already covered by its public pharmacare.

I do not think this amendment was unreasonable. Its purpose was simply to uphold respect for jurisdictions. The committee chair rejected the amendment on the grounds that it was out of order. The reason will come as a surprise to many. The chair ruled that our amendment was out of order because, in his opinion, it would have required royal recommendation, which we obviously challenged. In committee, however, we can challenge a decision, but unfortunately, we cannot debate it. The committee therefore voted to uphold the chair's ruling.

I was rather shocked that the committee ruled our amendment inadmissible. The purpose of the amendment was simply to ensure that jurisdictions are respected and that Quebec be given the money that has already been budgeted and set out in the bill. Quebec is simply asking that its share be set aside and that the money be transferred to Quebec so that it can improve the system that already exists in Quebec. It is unbelievable that that was rejected. It makes no sense.

I think the opposite is what should require a royal recommendation. Anything that goes against the Canadian Constitution should require a royal recommendation. That is not the case here. Unfortunately, this bill goes against the very foundations of the Canadian Constitution. Let me explain.

It is rather ironic that it still takes a member of the separatist party to remind the House how the Canadian Constitution works, when the government never misses an opportunity to point out that the Constitution is untouchable and that all the issues related to it are not important to Canadians and Quebeckers or that Quebeckers do not care about jurisdictions. However, as surely as I stand in the House today, based on the polls we are seeing, I can say that Quebeckers want jurisdictions to be respected. Whenever Quebeckers are asked who they would prefer to manage services like education or health care, the vast majority of the time, the answer is the same: Quebec.

It is all the more ironic given that the Constitution I am talking about is the one that was imposed in secret by the father of the current Prime Minister, during the night of the long knives in 1982. That was a little refresher. Since then, the Liberal Party's tendency has grown stronger. Increasingly, English-speaking Canada wants Ottawa to be its real government, the one that manages the bulk of public services. Conversely, Quebec has made a different choice. Quebec wants to manage its own jurisdictions, its own health care system, its own education system, its own day cares and so on. That is the choice that Quebeckers are making and that is the clear choice that the Quebec National Assembly made when its members unanimously reiterated that jurisdictions must be respected.

Of course, pharmacare has a noble objective, that of giving every individual, every person who needs medical services or prescription drugs the ability to get those drugs for little or no cost. It is so noble that Quebec has already done it. Quebec already has its own pharmacare program. Taking care of people affected by the difficult economic conditions we are experiencing is very noble. The problem is that these measures are ill-suited to the different realities of Quebec and Canada's provinces.

Even with all the good faith in the world, this was inevitable. Health and housing are not federal matters. The House of Commons has no business getting involved in those areas. That is because Quebeckers believe that their real government is in Quebec City. As long as that is the case, the concept of fiscal imbalance will exist. My colleague from Mirabel is very familiar with the concept of fiscal imbalance. We will not stop talking about it in the House. By fiscal imbalance, I mean the fact that the provinces have insufficient financial resources in relation to their own powers, while the federal government normally has surpluses. It is hard to understand why it has these deficits given all the money it collects. Yes, it has services it is supposed to deliver, but they are not exactly high-quality services.

The responsibilities that fall under federal or provincial jurisdictions must be respected. More simply, as Bernard Landry used to say, “the needs are in the provinces but the means are in Ottawa”. Even if the federal government tries hard to deny its existence, the fiscal imbalance is a major problem that has been recognized for many years. As the population ages, the cost of Quebec's social programs is rising rapidly. The cost of pharmacare is obviously rising rapidly. It is up to the Quebec government, and the Quebec government alone, to determine where the funds for these programs should go and how to improve the pharmacare program that already exists.

Since Quebec is chronically underfunded, we might wonder, as we often do, if a Quebecker is worth less than a Canadian. The Government of Quebec is shouting itself hoarse asking for health transfers. What does the federal government have to say in response? It responds with even more intrusions into Quebec's jurisdiction. That is what we are seeing again today with pharmacare. Unfortunately, the reason Quebeckers prefer to have pharmacare and every area of Quebec's jurisdiction run by Quebec City, is that everything the federal government touches results in failure. Federal equals failure.

I have talked about ArriveCAN several times in the House. I have a question: How much does Tylenol cost when it is 7,500% higher than its cost, like the ArriveCAN app was? It is going to be expensive. That is what is happening with pharmacare. The pharmacare that the federal government is going to create is going to cost us a lot more because the only thing the federal government does is mismanage its programs, run them completely inefficiently, like it did with ArriveCAN.

Quebec's system may be imperfect, but it does not need interference or duplication of costs. It needs more money. That money is in the hands of the federal government. It is a mixed system, a system that works well between a “forgiver” and company contributions and individual payroll contributions. It is not perfect, but it works. It is based on an existing model in France. The federal government is modelling its plan after it. However, instead of simply saying that Quebec has the expertise and skills to run its own pharmacare, the federal government wants to duplicate it and make it less efficient. It is crazy and that is why the Bloc Québécois is against this type of bill and the pharmacare program proposed by the federal government.

I keep hearing my NDP colleagues remind us that the major unions, including the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, have come out in favour of moving forward with pharmacare. Of course, they had their reasons, as I will explain today. The reason is noble, the objective is noble. Improving medical coverage and offering pharmacare to people with diabetes or people who use contraception is noble, but it is not a federal jurisdiction. It is up to Quebec to decide how to do that. It would cost Quebec less to improve its own pharmacare program than to have it managed by the federal government. A ton of evidence shows that the federal government has no idea how to manage its own programs. Does anyone need to be reminded about passports or ArriveCAN? No, I will not go there. It is too late, and if the truth be told, I am a little too tired for that.

In conclusion, once we recognize, first of all, the fiscal imbalance problem, which will continue for as long as Canada is governed by the current Canadian Constitution, and secondly, the need to take steps to help our fellow citizens, the House will have to ask itself some hard questions. When the federal system was set up, important needs came under federal jurisdiction, like participating in imperialist wars. Today, the real needs are in the provinces.

Let us be honest. Instead of voting on pharmacare tonight, why not vote to reopen the Canadian Constitution and finally put an end to this farce of separate jurisdictions?

Let us ask Quebeckers to vote again, put an end to jurisdictions, and declare Quebec's independence.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak to what our government is doing, and plans to do, to help millions of Canadians who are struggling to pay for their prescription drugs.

Statistics Canada has indicated that one in five Canadians reported not having insurance to cover the cost of prescription medications in the previous 12 months. We have heard, time and time again, that Canadians who do not have drug insurance coverage struggle to afford medications and are left to make extremely difficult decisions to choose between paying for these medications or other basic necessities of life, such as food and housing.

No Canadian should have to make this type of a decision. This is why we introduced Bill C-64, the pharmacare bill, and continue to work with all parliamentarians and colleagues to ensure its speedy adoption.

This bill is needed for so many reasons. It proposes the foundational principles for the first phase of national pharmacare in Canada. These principles of access, affordability and appropriate use and universality have guided, and will continue to guide, our government's efforts in moving towards national, universal pharmacare.

We have seen these principles reflected in the work that is already under way, including launching the national strategy for drugs for rare diseases and improving affordable access to prescription drugs, which is the initiative with Prince Edward Island. I would like to take a moment to highlight the impact that both of these initiatives would have on national pharmacare.

In March last year, the Government of Canada launched the first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases with an investment of up to $1.5 billion over three years. As part of the overall $1.5 billion investment, the federal government will make available up to $1.4 billion over three years to provinces and territories through bilateral agreements.

This funding would help provinces and territories improve access to new and emerging drugs for Canadians with rare diseases, as well as support enhanced access to existing drugs, early diagnosis and screening for rare diseases. This would help ensure patients with rare diseases, including children, would have access to treatments as early as possible for a better quality of life.

With respect to Prince Edward Island, the Government of Canada established an agreement with P.E.I., in August 2021, to improve the affordable access to prescription drugs and inform the advancement of national universal pharmacare. The $35-million investment has allowed for P.E.I. to add new drugs to its provincial formulary and lower out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under existing public plans for island residents.

As of March of this year, P.E.I. has expanded access to over 100 new medications to treat a variety of conditions, including heart disease, pulmonary artery hypertension, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis and cancer. In addition, effective June 1, 2023, P.E.I. reduced copays to $5 for almost 60% of medications regularly used by island residents. I am pleased to share that, through this initiative, within the first nine months alone, P.E.I. residents have saved over $2.8 million in out-of-pocket costs on more than 300,000 prescriptions.

These two initiatives highlight how the principles of access, affordability, appropriate use and universality are reflected in our government's work, but they also underscore the importance of working with provinces and territories. Provinces and territories are, and will continue to be, a key partner in ensuring that Canadians get the health care they need. Our government will continue to work with provinces and territories to help ensure that this goal is met.

Finally, I would like to highlight another key component of Bill C-64, and that is the Government of Canada's intent to work with provinces and territories to provide universal, single-payer coverage for a number of contraceptives, as well as diabetes medications and supports. Similar to other initiatives that we have put in place, our work to provide contraception and diabetes medications would be guided by the principles I mentioned earlier and will involve working closely with our provincial and territorial partners. The importance of this provision within the bill cannot be understated.

We have likely heard over the past few weeks, since the introduction of Bill C-64, Canadians sharing their stories of how this bill would help them, how they are currently suffering from diabetes and do not have the insurance coverage, so they have to pay for their insulin, syringes and test strips out of pocket. Similarly, we are hearing stories of young women who do not have the drug coverage needed to pay for contraception or are limited in the choice available to them because more effective contraception is financially out of reach.

We have been receiving, and I certainly have received, numerous letters from Canadians across the country expressing their full support for Bill C-64 and asking the same question of when these drugs would be available to them. There is definitely a need for both of these sets of essential drugs, and I applaud the work of my parliamentary colleagues in getting the bill one step closer to a reality for Canadians.

Bill C-64 would allow for nine million Canadians of reproductive age to have better access to contraception and reproductive autonomy. This will help reduce the risk of unintended pregnancies and improve an individual's ability to plan for the future. As I mentioned, cost is the single most important barrier to access to these medications. Bill C-64 would ensure that Canadians will have access to a comprehensive suite of contraceptive drugs and the devices that they need. Similarly, we know that there is no cure for diabetes, but it can be treated with safe and effective medications.

Due to cost, 25% of Canadians with diabetes have reported not following their treatment plan. Improving access to diabetes medication, as outlined in Bill C-64, will help improve the health of almost four million Canadians living with diabetes and reduce the risk of serious life-changing health complications, which can include amputations or blindness. That is what Bill C-64 would do. It would give Canadians access to medications to maintain their health and give them a choice to determine which medication is best for them. In addition, these efforts will help avoid additional costs to the health care system.

In closing, our government will continue to work toward a national pharmacare plan that focuses on the principles of accessibility, affordability, appropriate use and universality. We will do so in partnership with provinces and territories, and we will do so knowing that Canadians need this immediately to help them access the drugs they need to live a healthy life.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on behalf of the people of Edmonton Manning tonight.

When a bill is brought before Committee, I expect that during the study done there that committee members would be able to make amendments that would improve the legislation. Sadly, that has not happened with Bill C-64, the pharmacare act, which is probably because the legislation is so flawed that nothing can fix it. The only proper fix is to bury it.

I wish that tonight we were debating the merits of a proposed national pharmacare program. Many Canadians would like to see such a thing, although they might not be so enthusiastic once they saw the price tag. The only resemblance the bill before us has to pharmacare is in the name. If we had asked Canadians what they expected to receive from the NDP-Liberal coalition besides ever-increasing taxes, high inflation, sky-high crime rates and housing shortages, they would probably have said, “Well, at least they have promised pharmacare.”

If we had asked what that meant, they would have said, “free prescription drugs for everyone: drugs to treat heart disease or cancer, life-saving drugs and maybe penicillin to treat any number of less serious illnesses”. Instead, what the government is offering is a pledge to consider funding contraceptives and diabetes drugs. It is not a pharmacare plan; it is an empty promise. It is not what anyone was expecting, but it is no surprise. It is not as if the Liberals really want a national pharmacare program. If they did, they would not have needed the NDP to push them into creating the bill before us.

The Liberals' plan is empty and it is pretty simple. They want to delay as much as possible to convince the NDP that a plan is coming and that therefore the incompetent government must be propped up. I have to give the Liberals credit for their political skill in this matter. They have the NDP so completely fooled that the government faces no chance of defeat no matter the scandals and no matter how much Liberal polices are hurting Canadians. The NDP is blindly accepting a Liberal promise, apparently unwilling to admit that they have been fooled.

I think it is safe to predict that when Canadians go to the polls, whether it is in October 2025 or earlier, the NDP will not be able to point to a functioning pharmacare program, not even the limited one that the bill calls for. However, the promise will have accomplished its purpose: keeping an undeserving government in power. It is the Canadian electorate that will hold both the NDP and the Liberals accountable for their actions. It is the Canadian people who will elect a Conservative government that actually cares about serving them and does not just care about political power.

The bill is being shoved through in haste by a government that is so desperate for approval. The Minister of Health is assuring Canadians that the pharmacare plan should not jeopardize the drug coverage that millions of Canadians have through private insurers. I am sure he is well-intentioned when he makes that statement; he may even believe his words, but good intentions are not reality.

The CEO of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association says that the bill could indeed cause disruption for those who have existing drug plans. Either he is right or the minister is right; it cannot be both. Given the Liberal track record, I suspect the minister is indulging in some wishful thinking, which is not surprising from a government that thinks budgets magically balance themselves, something that has not happened under the current Prime Minister.

By using time allocation, the government is rushing the bill through the House without opportunity for proper scrutiny, which is no surprise. Despite having had two years to figure out how they were going to implement their deal with the NDP, the Liberals put together the legislation at the last minute.

It is window dressing, designed not to define pharmacare, but to keep the government in office for a few more months to deny Canadians what they want most, which is an end to Liberal overspending and incompetence.

The proposed bill is a promise, and Canadians know what happens when Liberals make promises. They have made promises in the past nine years. The reality is that, when the Liberals make a promise, things always seem to get worse. They promised affordable housing, and housing costs have doubled under their watch. They promised that the carbon tax would not cost us anything, and we find now that 60% of families are paying more than they collect. The Liberals promised that taxes would go down, and taxes have gone up. They promised safe streets, and then delivered crime, chaos, drugs and disorder. It is no wonder Canadians are afraid things will get worse when the Liberals promise pharmacare.

If the government were serious about helping Canadians, it would have gone about things differently. It would have consulted with the insurance industry, found out what the private insurance sector was offering and what the non-profit sector was providing, examined existing provincial coverage, and discovered if there were gaps that needed to be addressed. Instead, the Liberals decided to rush blindly ahead.

Canadians know the government is not worth the cost. That has been proven time and time again over the past nine years. Is this pharmacare program worth the cost? An honest answer is that nobody knows because the minister cannot tell us how much it will cost. Any numbers he tosses around are more wishful thinking than reality.

Canadians are struggling and looking to the federal government for help. Inflation eats away at their paycheques. Every trip to the grocery store, it seems the prices are going up. Liberals' catch-and-release bail policies are turning violent offenders loose to commit yet more crimes. Despite an ever-increasing carbon tax, the government has no plan to balance its books.

The Liberals apparently have no desire to fix the problems created by their wasteful spending. They believe that water runs downhill but never reaches the bottom. They know they will not be in government when the bill for this mismanagement comes due. Food Banks Canada's 2024 poverty report card shows that almost 50% of Canadians feel financially worse off compared to last year, while 25% of Canadians are experiencing food insecurity.

The cost of living has become so high that food banks have seen a 50% increase in visits since 2021. As a direct consequence of the government's inflationary spending and taxes, millions of Canadians are struggling to keep their heads above water, yet the Liberals ask us to take on faith that they know how to set up and run a pharmacare program without turning it into a disaster.

This is the government that spent more than $50 million on an app that was supposed to cost $80,000, and it cannot tell us how or when that cost overrun happened, or who is responsible. Why should Canadians trust it to run anything?

The good news is that this is not a serious piece of legislation. As I said, the Liberals have no idea what they are doing and no real intention to institute a pharmacare program. Bill C-64 is a public relations exercise with which they hope to fool the NDP and Canadians into thinking they are doing something to help people. Given the Liberals track record, I doubt many Canadians will be fooled.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I think throughout the debate on Bill C-64, whether at second reading stage or at committee, we have seen nothing but fearmongering on the part of the Conservatives, for a simple reason: They do not support the bill. They do not want Canadians to have pharmacare. In fact, they support a private health care system. That is why they have chosen every which way to put up blockades against the bill by inventing stuff. We heard the member opposite, the health critic for the official opposition, throughout the committee process make things up while witnesses kept telling him that was not the case. He is still repeating the same mistruths.

I want to ask the member, who gave an excellent speech, this: How does he feel the legislation, if passed by Parliament, would help his constituents get the medications they so deserve and need?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

The member heckles me and laughs at me right now from down at the far end.

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, and he is a fellow British Columbian. We have worked collaboratively before.

At every step of the way, we introduced common-sense amendments. If I may, I will read into the record snippets of a few: “universal, in respect of pharmacare, means providing uniform coverage to all residents of all provinces and territories, including Indigenous peoples.” That was one that was voted down by the Liberal-NDP coalition.

Another amendment was this: “payments to the province or territory in order to provide, to Canadians without access to any other prescription drug coverage plan, public pharmacare coverage for or to increase any existing public pharmacare coverage for and to provide universal, single-payer, first-dollar coverage for”. Does that sound like Conservatives are trying to block this piece of legislation? It does not. How about this? This one is very straightforward: “make progress on providing universal coverage of pharmaceutical”.

I offer that to the House because, at every step of the way and throughout the next couple of hours of this debate, we will hear interventions from our Liberal colleagues and our NDP colleagues that will say that Conservatives tried to block this piece of legislation every step of the way.

Those of us who have been tasked, on this side of the House, to work collaboratively with the other side in the health committee worked diligently to try to come up with an actual piece of legislation that was accurate and that provided the necessary tools and meat for such an important topic. We were shut down at every step of the way, primarily by our colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, who was doing yeoman service for his Liberal coalition on the other side, as most of them sat silent.

I want to remind the House as well that all provinces have their own type of pharmacare and that 97.2% of Canadians have some form of coverage. This is a $2-billion cost, a program cost. Surely, for the one million or 1.1 million Canadians who are without coverage, we could have found a different way of doing this, a better way of doing this, that would not have put in jeopardy the plans that 27 million other Canadians have. We have spoken with insurers. We have spoken with businesses that offer private insurance to their employees, and they have questions: Who is going to pay? What happens to their employees? What happens to those who are insured by them? Insurers have concerns. Canadians have concerns.

Moreover, I will offer this. In last night's committee of the whole debate, a lot was said about this plan being universal pharmacare. We know that we have constituents who are phoning and saying that they are going to the pharmacy today and asking if they can get their medications paid for. The reality is this: No, they cannot.

This was confirmed by the Minister of Health last night when I asked him if Bill C-64 provides any government funding for those struggling or inflicted with cardiac issues. The answer was no. Does Bill C-64 provide any funding for those with ALS? The answer was no. Does Bill C-64 provide any government funding for those who are struggling with asthma? It does not. Does Bill C-64 provide any funding for any medications other than contraception or diabetes? His answer was no, that it does not.

This is not universal pharmacare. It provides the necessary and very important medications for those struggling or living with diabetes and it provides contraception. It does not offer what it is being billed as. That is exactly what we are telling the government.

Tell Canadians exactly what it is. Let us be honest with Canadians. This is not universal pharmacare. That is where we have problems with this bill.