Debates of May 6th, 2024

Second reading

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is true that contraceptives are not yet covered. That is why we need money. We are going to improve our system.

Since my colleague is asking questions about how it works, I will quickly explain. We have a mixed system in Quebec. People who are not covered by private group insurance pay, if I remember correctly, between $0 and $731 in premiums per year, depending on their income. That is how it works for people in the public system. For everyone else, the employer deducts an insurance premium from the employee's earnings.

I should also point out that ours is the most progressive taxation system in North America. The tax rate is income-based. There is no better place in North America for that.

The Quebec system is certainly not perfect, as I said in my speech. However, we are going to improve it. All we have to say to the government is let us manage it on our own.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I studied the pharmacare system when I served on the Standing Committee on Health. The Liberals did not do anything until they introduced this bill.

The Quebec system has a list of drugs, a formulary, and I think it is the best system in the country. What does the member think about the fact that this bill targets only two drugs for this pharmacare system?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intelligent question and for recognizing that Quebec's list is working well.

We have a good system, but it could be improved, as I mentioned earlier. That is why we want the money. We are often told by government members that we, the Bloc, see the feds as an ATM and that all we want is our money. Well, it actually is “our” money, since it is our citizens who paid the taxes, so, yes, we want our money in order to provide services to Quebeckers in our areas of jurisdiction.

To finish answering my colleague's question, the list could certainly be improved. We sincerely hope so. My biggest fear, however, is that the federal government will come up with a list that will likely be much worse than Quebec's, because when it comes to social issues, I am sorry, but Quebec is ahead of the curve.

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

Madam Speaker, I like my colleague a lot, but I find it hard to accept that the Bloc Québécois is refusing to listen to the people in Quebec who are in favour of this bill.

The Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, or CSQ, and the Fédération des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec welcome the introduction of this bill.

Luc Beauregard of the CSQ said:

Quebec's hybrid system, with a public plan and private plans, has not lived up to its promises. We think it should absolutely not be used as a model for the rest of Canada. It is a costly, ineffective and unfair plan.

Quebec's unions say that we must pass this bill. Why is the Bloc Québécois not listening to these voices in Quebec?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, we can quote unions, too. The CSN is on the side of Quebec independence. I do not know if my colleague agrees with them on that point. I am guessing he does not agree with them on everything.

The unions know we are part of Canada for now, and they want more money so their members will be able to pay less for their medication.

When we meet with them and explain that if the federal government gets involved, there will be redundancy, it will cost more, it will be less efficient, and that it would be much better if we had our own money, I think that, at the end of the day, they agree with us.

We obviously place great trust in the members of Quebec's National Assembly, who have sent out a clear message.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to what members have to say about Bill C-64. In some areas, I am not surprised. In other areas, I am surprised. Let me provide a bit of an overview before I get into more detail.

When I think of pharmacare and the potential that pharmacare has for all Canadians, I think that we undervalue and underestimate the degree to which Canadians as a whole would support not only the concept, but also the implementation, of a true pharmacare program. This is not new for me. I have been talking about pharmacare for many years. I have been an advocate for it because I understand and believe in the benefits of a national program.

There is no province or territory in Canada that has absolutely free prescribed medications for its population. Everything depends on the province that one is in. It could be based on age or affordability, but there are all sorts of different variations. There is public sector participation and private sector participation. There is a wide spectrum, a smorg, of different ways that pharmaceuticals are being delivered in Canada. That is the reason I asked the Bloc member to provide more detail of the plan in Quebec. Someone will stand up to says it is free in Quebec, but this bill clearly demonstrates that it is not free.

Many would say that, if we have to pay a deductible or an annual premium, and if things are not in it that should be incorporated, it is not free. I am glad the member said that there is room for improvement. No matter what program we are talking about, there is always room for improvement. I suggest that the way we should be looking at the whole issue of pharmacare is to take a holistic approach to the expectations people have for health care in general.

I have said many times in the past how important health care is to all people in Canada, in all regions of our nation. That has not been lost on the government. The Bloc will say it does not want Ottawa to be involved, other than to hand out money. That particular attitude does not surprise me, and I will add further comments on that in a bit.

What really surprises me is the Conservative Party's approach to health care. It is demonstrated with Bill C-64. People need to be aware of this. At the end of the day, we value and treasure health care here in Canada. The Canada Health Act protects the integrity of the system in all regions. It is one of the reasons the federal government allocates the billions of dollars it does for federal transfer payments.

We have seen a national government and, in particular, a prime minister, our Prime Minister, who has taken a health care initiative, recognizing how important it is to Canadians. We are looking at ways to enhance it, to build a stronger health care system. Nationalized health care or the Canada Health Act are established, and many other countries today that have that form of legislation or that sort of delivery of health care have already incorporated a national pharmacare program.

One does not have to be a Liberal or a New Democrat to see the benefits of it. I used to be the health critic in the province of Manitoba, and I understand just how critical medicine actually is to our health care system.

We can think about it in the sense that, if a person gets sick and goes into a hospital, they receive medications in that emergency setting. I do not believe any province is actually charging for that. This is virtually universal now across Canada. It might be because of an ulcer issue, some sort of a bleed or any other need that might be there. If a person has to stay in a hospital facility for however long a time, the hospital staff does not say, “Well, here's a bandage. By the way, you're going to have to pay for that.” Or for medication, maybe a painkiller, they do not put out their hand, saying, “We want money before we inject the painkiller.”

However, the moment that person leaves the hospital, then it changes. This may not happen in every province, as some provinces might cover prescribed medications more than others, some might not charge as much, some will have a deductible and, as I said, some will have those annual premiums. What happens, generally speaking, is that the individual leaves the hospital and finds that now they are going to have to start paying for the medications.

I cannot tell members how many 55-plus facilities, personal care facilities or independent living facilities I have been to where they talk about the cost of medications, with diabetes being one of them. They will tell us, “Look, we cannot afford the medication.” As a result, I would suggest that there are many people who end up going back to hospitals because they are not getting the medications they require. This is because of decisions they have actually had to make in terms of buying and purchasing the medication versus food or possibly rent, or the amount of medications that are required and the bill that is associated with that. Those are the types of things that end up costing communities, society and the taxpayer a whole lot more when that individual ends up returning to the hospital because they were not taking the medications that were necessary in order to keep them out of the hospital facility.

The problem with the debate on the pharmacare issue is that I would have liked to hear more about, collectively as a House, seeing the value of this and that we want to move forward. This is what Bill 64 is doing; it is moving us forward on a very important issue. I would rather have seen everyone coming to an agreement that, yes, this is good stuff, we should be supporting it, and then adding value to that.

I think of Cardine, whom I met at a local restaurant on a Saturday. She was talking about the issue of the shingles vaccination and how this is something people should not necessarily have to pay for. I raised that with some of my colleagues.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know it is not on the list. At the end of the day, some provinces, from what I understand, provide coverage for shingles vaccination for those 55 and over, or maybe 60 and over, whereas some provinces do not. However, I was suggesting, by bringing it up, that this is the type of discussion I would like to hear more about, but not in terms of how we keep Ottawa away from the issue of pharmacare or developing a national program. I do not think that is what our constituents want to hear. I believe they want to see consistency, where they can, in the different regions of our country.

I have presented many petitions in the House on the issue of pharmacare. I have consulted and talked about pharmacare at the door for years. I understand who has what kind of responsibility in health. As I said, I was a health care critic in the province of Manitoba.

However, I do not understand denying the opportunity for a federal government to participate in providing contraceptives or diabetes medications. I do not understand how opposition parties could oppose that, no matter what province they are from. Tell me a province, and I say that to all members, that provides any form of support for contraceptives today. I am not aware of any, but I could be wrong on that.

How could anyone say that the legislation would not be of benefit for all Canadians? It is a major part of the legislation. When we think of diabetes, we are not talking about a few hundred or a few thousand Canadians; we are talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadians who would be affected by Bill C-64.

What are opposition members afraid of? If they were truly listening to what people are saying in their communities, I would suggest that they should talk more about the issue of health care. I talk a great deal about health care in my riding. I understand why it is so important.

[An hon. member]

It's provincial.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a Conservative heckles across the way, and she is consistent with other Conservative members who say it is a provincial responsibility. That is the attitude. We can remember, at the beginning, I said that the Bloc does not surprise me. I understand why Bloc members do not support it. It is a separatist party. It would just as soon Ottawa hand over the money, then Quebec would take the money and develop the programming.

In contrast, the Conservative Party thinks it is a provincial responsibility. People need to be aware, because it is the same as the member's off-the-cuff heckle. I would suggest that it is not just a provincial responsibility. If the member truly understood the Canada Health Act and, more importantly, her constituents, she would quickly realize that it is not just a provincial responsibility.

Even when I was in the Manitoba legislature, I argued and articulated that health care is not solely the responsibility of the Province of Manitoba. I like to think that, at the end of the day, all provinces have a responsibility to follow the Canada Health Act. When I talk to people about the pharmacare program and Bill C-64, it is a positive discussion. I have yet to hear anyone, outside the Conservative Party, tell me that Ottawa moving forward with respect to a national pharmacare program is a bad thing. I cannot recall anyone saying that we should not be doing this.

That might precipitate a few emails to me, but at the end of the day, I believe it is because people truly appreciate and understand the value.

That is why I said before the interruptions that one has to take a holistic approach to health care. Let us look at what has happened since 2015, when a new Prime Minister was elected and the agenda of health care started to change in a very positive way. It was not that long ago, and I referred to this earlier, that we actually had the Prime Minister in Winnipeg at a press conference at the Grace Hospital. My colleague would be very familiar with the Grace Hospital. At the end of the day, we had the premier of the province, the provincial minister of health, the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Health. We talked about the future of health care and how the $198 billion over 10 years would have a positive impact not only for today but for tomorrow, thinking of generations ahead. We talked about how it would impact the province of Manitoba.

Let us think about the number of agreements that have been achieved by the government with the different provinces and territories and indigenous community leaders, all dealing directly or indirectly with the well-being and health of people. Something that was missing previously was the type of financial commitment, along with the sense of co-operation. Then we look at the type of national programs that we would bring in, which would make a difference.

People talk about the dental program as an example. Having a dental program ultimately helped literally thousands of children over the last year, including children who would not have been able to see a dentist or get some of the dental work that they received as a direct result of a national program. There are actually children in the province of Manitoba who end up going to emergency departments because their dental work has been neglected. Moving forward with a dental program is a good thing.

We just came out with the national food program, where we are delivering more nutritious food for children throughout the country. Hundreds of thousands of children will actually benefit from the program.

That is why I said that health care is a lot more than just a hospital facility. People need to look at everything from independent living and community living to what takes place in our schools. They need to think in terms of the medications; the bill is about getting people talking about medications and the important role they play in health care. Along with that, I would suggest that there is a general attitude that says we are committed to the Canada Health Act and to making sure that we continue to provide the type of progressive programs that would complement the health and well-being of Canadians. That is the way I see Bill C-64. It complements the Canada Health Act, and people should not fear it. They should accept it and look at ways in which we can improve upon it.

We often hear about the issue of bulk buying, as an example, and the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been saved in that area. I would suggest that we could do even more. I look forward to seeing the ongoing debate on this very important issue. I would hope that my Conservative friends, in particular, would revisit their positioning with the idea of getting behind the legislation and voting in favour of it.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, not too long ago, at the beginning of this year, there was a shortage of Ozempic, which is a medication diabetics take. For some diabetics, this was the only type of medication that would help them with their particular condition. There was a shortage and there was not enough to go around. With the government in charge of deciding who will get this life-saving medication in the event of another shortage, because there will be one, how will the government decide who lives and who dies?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, look at the options of the Conservative Party and what the Conservatives would be saying. They would be saying not to go to them because they do not care. They would tell people to go to the provinces or anywhere else but not to Ottawa, because the Conservative Party does not believe that Ottawa plays a role when it comes to the health and well-being of Canadians. If this debate we are having today was on the Canada Health Act, the Conservative members of Parliament would be instructed by their leader to vote against it. They do not believe in—

[An hon. member]

That is not right.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, it is true. That is what we are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is not about having debate back and forth unless someone is recognized. I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to ignore the comments that are being made on the other side.

I would also ask members on the other side to wait until they are recognized to make comments as opposed to heckling or trying to ask other questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, think about it. Many Conservatives have stood in the chamber and said that health care is a provincial responsibility. I for one believe what they are saying is what they believe. If that is what they believe, Canadians need to be concerned that the Conservative Party of Canada today has dropped the issue of being progressive and will cut health care. That is the bottom line coming from the Conservative Party.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us take things down a notch by asking a fundamental question. I have a two-pronged question for the parliamentary secretary.

First, does my colleague think that the child care program is a good program? Does he think that it works well across Canada?

Second, does he not think that the pharmacare program could work just as well, if the federal government would respect Quebec and its jurisdictions for once and give the Government of Quebec the money that belongs to Quebeckers? That would not cost the rest of Canada anything. This is just a matter of respecting the systems that are already in place and those who blazed the trail.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the Province of Saskatchewan led the way, which encouraged Ottawa to ultimately come up with the Canada Health Act, and today Canadians have a fantastic health care system. Sure, there are some imperfections there, but at least we have a quality national health care program.

The Province of Quebec had a wonderful child care program. Ottawa was able to look at the Quebec example and establish a national child care program that all provinces have signed on board with, thereby ensuring that we have a strong, healthy national health care program. I think Ottawa is in a good position to be able to deliver for Canadians in all regions of the country and I would hope we would get participation. I would encourage the provinces to look at ways we can continue to work together in certain areas to ensure that we have healthier communities.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that it was the NDP who pushed for the beginning stages of this pharmacare plan. I am very proud that the NDP government in Manitoba already has free contraception in place. I am glad that the Liberals are finally coming on board, after a lot of coaxing.

However, despite the Liberals saying they support the right to choose, they have not done their due diligence in ensuring access to safe, trauma-informed abortion care, including out east where women cannot even access abortion. Does my hon. colleague agree that the government is responsible to ensure that women can access safe, trauma-informed abortion out east and that the government needs to do more to uphold that right?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, whether it be the Prime Minister, members of cabinet or members of Parliament within the Liberal ranks, I think that we all have been very strong advocates on that particular point. I would suggest to the member that there is potential. As I cited, Saskatchewan played a very important role in regard to health care. Quebec played a very important role in regard to child care. I would love to see Manitoba play an important role on the further development of a pharmacare program that would be something that we could share with different provinces. I believe the best way we can deliver the best type of pharmacare program would be to have different levels of government working together for the betterment of Canadians.

I am an optimist. I am going to hold out and believe that the Province of Manitoba and others will seriously look at ways to make the program more successful.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite a fruitful debate today. It has been interesting to hear the diversity of perspectives and experiences as to what different provinces are doing.

I know that here, in the province of Ontario, it has been really challenging to have the provincial government step up at the level that it should, so the federal government has been doing more than its fair share. To have a partner, as the member referred to, would be quite interesting. To hear what other provinces are doing, it really does make me think that, if other provinces can do it, would it not be great to see my province able to do that? Perhaps there is something that Ontario is doing that other provinces could do.

What I would like to hear from the member is really on the matter of pharmacare. I know he has stood up in the House numerous times in regard to petitions and his constituents. Within the riding of Waterloo, constituents who have access to pharmacare have been saying, great. Constituents who do not have access say they want to have that access to pharmacare and they want access to medication.

Is the advancement of this legislation something we can take for granted? I know today there have been comments hoping everyone is unanimously supporting it. Can the member just reiterate and share what he has been hearing within this chamber as to the voices of all parties? Are all parties in support of this to ensure that every Canadian has access to pharmacare?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what has become very clear is that Canadians should be concerned if they support the concept of a national pharmacare program. They need to know that the Conservative Party of Canada will not support pharmacare and a national pharmacare program. Member after member has stood up who will clearly be voting against this legislation. There is no doubt that it will be on the axing block if the Conservative leader ever forms government. People should not take this for granted.

I think that Conservatives need to be clear with Canadians on this very important issue. Pharmacare would complement our health care system, and this is something that we should all be voting in favour of. I am very much concerned that the Conservative Party appears to be voting against this legislation.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I studied pharmacare at the health committee, we heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and multiple stakeholders that 95% of Canadians already have prescription medication coverage, and most of them are covered for 15,000 drugs, not two, like this lame bill that we have before us. Not only that, but the Liberals want to have the critical medications for Canadians delivered to them by the same fantastic bunch that cannot get a passport out the door in seven months and that have a 30% error rate in CRA. Is that who we want to manage the critical medications of Canadians? What could possibly go wrong?

Would the member just admit that this bill is a pacifier for the NDP, to keep them from pulling their support and calling an election?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been advocating for this type of legislation for a number of years. This is something that has been brought into Liberal platform positions in the past.

This is something about which the government is very serious. Again, the member just reinforced that the Conservative Party does not support national pharmacare. I think Canadians need to be fully aware of that.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, as always, to stand in the House of Commons to represent the incredible people of Peterborough—Kawartha.

Tonight on the docket, what do we have here in Ottawa, in the House of Commons? We have a bill that was put forward by the Liberal—NDP coalition and it is called pharmacare.

I just want to give some context for folks at home of the summary. This is the official summary:

This enactment sets out the principles that the Minister of Health is to consider when working towards the implementation of national universal pharmacare and provides the Minister with the power 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.

One can tell, with the word salad here, which we often see put forward by the government, that it just leaves a lot of loopholes to say that they are not going to over-commit and that they are not going to do anything, so they can then skirt out of it when it fails.

What is the bill? It is really the crux of the supply and demand agreement. It is simply a bill to keep the Prime Minister in power. The leader of the NDP sold his soul for this bill, and it is sad because he has also sold out Canadians. It is frustrating. It is infuriating. It is exhausting for everyone at home.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, here is what we have. I actually have to read it off of paper because there is so much that has happened.

There has been doubled housing costs, the highest food bank usage in history and a steady decline in the Canadian economy, meaning that Canadians are now poorer by $4,200 per person. This is Canada's worst decade for real economic growth since the 1930s. There are Facebook groups called “dumpster divers” because people cannot afford food.

Crime and chaos are at all-time highs. There are criminals running free and terrorizing neighbourhoods because of the Prime Minister's soft-on-crime policies. Domestic violence has increased. Compared to 2014, intimate partner sexual assault is 163% higher. Online child predators are up 300%.

Recruitment and retention in the armed forces is the lowest in history. Young people believe that they will never own a home. People have no motivation to go to work because 46% of their paycheque goes to taxes.

I had one gentleman message me. He said, “You know, Michelle, we work so hard. I'm almost embarrassed to say this because I make $100,000 a year. That sounds like so much money, but our interest rates have increased. Our mortgage costs have doubled. ” He said, “I decided I'll go take some overtime because we really can't make ends meet. We really have no money left at the end of the month. We can't afford to feed the kids. We're having to cut their sports. It's taking a toll on my marriage. It's taking a toll on our life.”

He goes and works 30,000 dollars' worth of overtime and he was taxed $22,000 out of that $30,000. That was time away from his family, time away from his kids, time away from everything, to go to work, to do the right thing. Work does not pay.

Why are people going to work? Why would one go to work? What a devastation to the soul, because people love to work. It is purpose. It is structure. We work for two things: because we have a purpose in this world and to collect a paycheque to provide for our families. The Liberal government has taken away both of those things.

Our birth rate is the lowest in history. Has anyone noticed a trend here? These are historic numbers that have never been seen before. People cannot afford to have a baby. They are saying they cannot afford a home and cannot afford to have kids. They are terrified. There are headlines like that of a Global News article, which says, “B.C. mother says lack of child care could leave her homeless”. Guess what? The Liberal-NDP government promised that it would make affordable, accessible child care, that it would save everybody, and that everything would be great. What has been delivered? Absolute chaos.

Women entrepreneurs have given their life; they have sacrificed everything to care for kids in their home, and they are losing their businesses because the Liberal-NDP government is so ideological that it does not offer flexibility and choice. It has to be the government's way always. It wants control, and that is what has happened.

I visited a child care facility in Manitoba this past weekend. It was absolutely incredible. It was able to build 22 child care spots in 18 months. It is remarkable what it has been able to do. A woman who spoke to me said that the CWELCC program, or the $10-a-day child care program, is actually a risk to children because moms and parents are having to choose between feeding their kids and putting their kids in safe child care. That is the reality of what has happened under the Liberal government.

Every day there are viral videos of Canadians who say they are moving because Canada is broken and no longer recognizable. We have a Liberal Prime Minister with historic records of corruption and scandals. Every single day is another scandal or another corruption. There is zero trust with the Canadian people. A guy came up to me on the street and said he just wanted me to know that people are exhausted. He is a restaurant owner and he said he was exhausted. He said that he cannot believe we have a Prime Minister who has destroyed our country in the way that he has, and that people are so tired. The NDP leader keeps him there with the bill before us that would deliver nothing, again.

There are 22 people a day dying from overdoses. Drugs have flooded our streets, and addiction has taken thousands of families hostage. I want to tell members a story because I think it is critical. Right now, the Conservatives are the only party saying “enough with the wacko drug policy, safe supply”. How does it work? I want to explain it because I think it is really important. Safe supply is, ultimately, the idea that somebody dealing with or battling with addiction walks in and is given a supply of Dilaudid. On the street, they are called “dillies”. It is a highly addictive opioid. Someone is given 30 of them, Dilaudid or dillies, then they go out, maybe want to do the right thing, and take them and try to level out.

However, it does not work, and they need something stronger, so they sell the Dilaudid. This is called diversion. They sell them on the street, and it brings down the value of the drug. Then they seek something stronger. Then there are all of these “safe” drugs; that is how the drug dealers sell it to high school kids. They go around and say, “Hey, this is safe. It is only a buck. Your parents can take it.” The kids buy it and now get addicted to opioids. There is a whole new generation addicted to opioids.

What happens is that the addict progresses, takes fentanyl, a street drug, and dies of a fentanyl overdose. That is why we have people, especially in the NDP, who say that people are not dying of safe supply and of diversion. However, they are dying as a direct result of the failed experiment of safe supply. That is a true story. The number one cause of death for children in British Columbia between the ages 10 and 18 is opioids. It is unbelievable. There is an outreach worker in Ottawa who tells the story of what is happening on the streets of Ottawa, outside pharmacies, of dillies being diverted to teenagers.

There was an arrest just outside my community, of a 14-year-old with safe-supply fentanyl. This is the reality of what has happened after nine years of the current Prime Minister. There are record applications for MAID, including from those who simply cannot afford to live so they are applying for medical assistance in dying.

What a time to be Canadian. I have just read historic stats to members. Never before in my lifetime have I ever seen Canada like this. Certainly why many of us chose to run for politics was to correct the course we are on. It is not a fluke, and it is not random, why we are here. It is all a lack of leadership. That is the reality of what we are dealing with in this country. When we have a leader whose sole mission is power and control, we can guess who loses; it is Canadians.

There are consequences to actions and consequences to policies, and Canadians are feeling the misery and suffering after nine years of the Prime Minister. How does this impact pharmacare? The Prime Minister knew he was tanking in the polls. He had to think up a plan, and he had to think it up quick, just like the good old Grinch. He said, “I know who I can exploit. I am going to go to the leader of the NDP. He will never be in power, so I will make him an offer, make him think he has power, and that is what I will have to keep myself in power. In case an election is called, this is how I will do it.”

Every single day, I get calls asking why there is not an election. We are done. Every single thing has an expiration date. The Prime Minister is long overdue his, but he is in power, and the pharmacare bill is a big piece of it. The leader of the NDP signed a coalition agreement, and maybe he had good intentions. Maybe he thought he was actually going to help Canadians, and maybe he thinks he is going to get something out of this.

I thought at the beginning of my term, and now I know, that power and control are what the Liberals want. That is the driving force for the leaders of the NDP and the Liberals in the House. The pharmacare bill is yet another marketing slogan. It sounds wonderful, but as with everything the Liberals announce, they promise us one thing and deliver another. In so many instances, they actually deliver nothing.

I want to tell a story that is really sad. The Liberals often hurt the most vulnerable because they set an expectation, saying, “We are going to promise the moon, the stars, the sun and $10-a-day day care for everyone, except that one person does not get it, and another and another do not get it. One does get it, that guy right there, but everybody else is a loser. There is one winner.” There are winners and losers. That is what the Liberal-NDP government does.

The government set out the Canada disability benefit. The minister of, at the time, disabilities and inclusion came to testify at the human resources committee in October of last year. We were waiting. We had witnesses. We were studying the bill, and we asked what the benefit would do. The minister said that the benefit “will lift...people out of poverty, big time.”

Along came budget 2024. The Liberals were so proud. They came out and said, “Here is our disability benefit: six dollars a day.” Rachel and Jason came to my office. They are with the Council for Persons with Disabilities in Peterborough. I said, “Tell me how you feel about the disability benefit.” They said, “Well, you know, we are grateful”, because this is what the Prime Minister does. He shames people. They cannot speak out, because they just have to be grateful for the scraps the government gives them. It takes everything away from people, and then it gives them little scraps. It belittles them and make them feel small and worthless.

Rachel and Jason said that it is basically like this: Members know that old game of trust, the trust and fall exercise we used to play as kids. We would close ours eyes and fall backwards, and the person behind was supposed to catch us. Jason and Rachel said to me that it is as if the person who catches is the Liberals, but not only do they not catch someone but they got out of the way and did not tell them.

That is the reality of the bill before us, and the Liberals make it seem like the Conservatives do not care about this. No, it is that we do not believe them. We do not trust them and we do not believe them, because they have not delivered anything they said they would. We are the only ones standing in here fighting for the Canadians who are genuinely struggling to survive. That is the problem with the bill. Not once have Liberals proven to us that they will deliver what they said they will.

There are historic highs of food bank usage in this country. Housing costs have doubled, and young people believe they will never own a home. However, the Liberals get up and say, “We have done a great job. We are such good people and Canadians should be grateful. We are really good. We are great.” Guess what? Canadians have caught on. They know so much; they see right through it. The bill is just another distraction of “We will give you this.”

Let us break down the facts. Currently we are spending more on serving the Prime Minister's out-of-control debt than we are on health care transfers. This is a true story. It is going to get worse and worse because he keeps spending and spending like a maniac. It is basic economics. Anybody who has ever had to balance a household budget knows this.

If someone makes $100 a month but spends $150, what happens? The person has to borrow the money. Then the next month, if that person makes $100 and again spends $150, they need to borrow more and are now at $200. They had to use their credit card to do that and are now paying credit card interest, so they are just putting money toward the interest and not even paying down their debt. Their credit score goes down and they go further and further into debt. They cannot spend time with their family and are stressed out of their mind.

This is Mental Health Week. The number one thing a good leader would do is make life affordable. That is the greatest gift we can give our kids. They do not need money and things; they need us. They need connection and they need time. Parents cannot give that because they are too busy working trying to pay for food and housing they cannot afford because of the Liberal Prime Minister.

There are six million Canadians without a family doctor, and wait times have never been longer. Where is the bill on that? I do not see it. The wait time from seeing a family doctor to getting specialist treatment is crazy. Listen to this. Something is wrong with a person, and they need to see the family doctor. The wait time has increased incredibly. The person does not have a family doctor, so there is problem number one. Number two is that the family doctor then has to recommend the person to the specialist.

The wait time to get to the specialist has increased 195%. This is the longest it has been in three decades. People are literally dying while waiting to see specialists and to get surgery. We have the longest wait times in the world, at 25 months, for new life-saving therapies. I do not see any money in the budget for that.

Who writes prescriptions? Doctors do, so if someone does not have a doctor, how are they going to get the prescription from the magical pharmacare bill? The Canadian Life & Health Insurance Association has stated that the bill would spend billions of dollars unnecessarily on drugs for people who already have coverage. Who cares about monetary policy, right? What possible consequences could come from not wanting to balance a budget? There are 27 million Canadians who rely on workplace plans and who would be placed at risk by the legislation. It would create the Canadian—