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.

Second reading

[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.

[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.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He shared such amazing points today about the importance of looking after Canadians.

I am standing today, as a woman in Parliament, discussing one of the most important aspects of women's health and daily life: access to contraceptives. This health care measure is currently restricted by whether one can afford to access it or not. It should not be that way. Every time I enter this place, I am aware of how different my experiences are from the men who have not had to deal with regular menstrual cycles, painful periods, ovarian cysts, PMS and PMDD, endometriosis, menstrual migraines and unintended pregnancy. These are part of daily life when one has ovaries, starting in one's teens. Having ovaries requires management and affects everyday choices for school, work, recreation and more.

With that in mind, I am going to take a moment to read a poem by my daughter Coral. She is a writer and a poet. I wanted to share it because it shows how periods affect women, girls and non-binary people, from their very early teens. It is called Late Bloomer.

In the seventh grade, all my friends started menstruating,
but not me.
We would travel in a gossiping group to the school
washroom and I would listen as my
friends ripped tape inside stalls.
In high school, we had swimming in gym. I had a hard
time with a box of “easy applicators”.
I cried, one foot propped up on the toilet.
I lied on the ground, tried to raise my hips and contort my
body to be comfortable.
The garbage filled with failure. I surrendered to pads.
Diapers, my friends called them.
I would hide panic as girls exchanged tampons in cute
pink wrappers. Once a pad fell out of my bag, I snatched
it up, cheeks shame red.
I concealed pads far up sleeves and deep down in
pockets. On days I forgot a pad I settled for folded tissues
and tied my jacket around my waist.
Today, I borrowed a pad from a stranger.
Her cheeks weren't red and neither were mine. bloom,
bloom, bloom

“Bloom, bloom, bloom” is how I see this bill. It is time to blossom. It is a bill that sets in place a framework to consider the needs of women, girls and transgender people who menstruate.

My message to the men in power across the globe, including in Canada, who have spent their legislative time trying to control women and their bodies, while ignoring the enhancements that are there in basic health care, is to stop it, and let this bill bloom.

At a time when the possibility of gender equity remains elusive, what gives me hope is that in this bill, and currently in the tabled budget, the needs of women are starting to make their way onto the main stage, after 150 years. Affordable child care, free contraceptives, the red dress alert from my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, a caregiving strategy and a sectoral table on care economy are all women's issues that the Conservatives and the Liberals have ignored for decades.

With that in mind, that is what causes me worry. The Conservatives in the House are rejecting these important advancements for women and, at the same time, are working against us by espousing that they would override women's charter rights on a whim. Conservatives are dangerous to women. If they ever had the power, they would immediately go after a woman's right to choose, just like what has happened in the United States. I never want to see that happen.

Not only would Bill C-64 help women as a framework for historic expansion of health care to single-payer pharmacare, but also the first rollout would give access to life-saving medication and devices for diabetics.

Linda, a resident in my riding, recently told me she estimates that, since she was diagnosed with diabetes over 40 years ago, she has spent over $120,000 on medication and devices to manage it. This is unfair. She has had to spend thousands of dollars a month just to stay alive. While I am on the topic of gender equity, Linda shared that she was 26 when she was diagnosed. She went to the doctor. She was single at the time, and the doctor said to just go find herself a husband, and she would be fine. This is what happens when someone cannot afford their medication or when society decides that women should not have economic empowerment and that they would not be able to afford their medication on their own.

Even with the loss of the life of a diabetic, if they do not get their medication, the Conservatives have decided to block the pharmacare bill. While they enjoy their MP taxpayer-funded health care and dental benefits, they deny them to others who need them. With the new pharmacare bill, New Democrats know that Canadians would have the access to medication that they need, not with a credit card, but with a health care card.

This would mean that close to 10 million Canadians would not have to suffer in pain and discomfort, would not have to put their health at risk and would not have to let their conditions get worse. This would no longer have to happen. The reason the Conservatives and the Liberals have let it happen in the past is profits from big pharma, as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned.

It is about trying to keep big pharma happy, not about trying to keep Canadians healthy. We need to do the work to keep Canadians healthy, to make sure we do preventative medicine and to release the burden of the expenses of contraceptives, diabetic medication and other medications as they come out. This is why we must pass the bill as quickly as possible. People are waiting on us, and the provinces are ready to come together and make life better for people.

The NDP has gotten this victory for Linda, for all women, and for people who use contraceptives and have not been able to get access to contraceptives. All those people will be able to get access very soon, and it would roll out to be even more. They would be able to keep the money in their pockets rather than in the pocket of some rich CEO.

I want to close and to double down on the fact that this is not the time to let our guard down as Canadians and as the NDP. This is not the time to let our guard down. Ideologies south of the border are coming up into Canada. There is a conversation in the House, and the Conservatives are trying to open a conversation about removing a woman's right to choose. They are using bills like this pharmacare bill around contraceptives to have that conversation. We cannot let it happen.

Also, for all Canadians, who are paying some of the highest drug prices in the world, this is not fair, and this is legislation. This is because of the Conservatives and the Liberals before, who have let big pharma take advantage of Canadians, gouge Canadians and made Canadians sicker because of their lack of compassion and their desire to control a woman's body.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his timely intervention.

This is a proud and historic moment because Canada stands alone in the world as the only country with universal health care that does not have some form of universal coverage for prescription medication, and the case for this bill and the case for pharmacare are exceedingly strong.

One in five people in this country have zero or poor medication coverage. Nearly a million people cut their spending on things like groceries and heat so that they can afford medication, and one in five households have a member who did not take the medication they were prescribed because of the cost of that medication. This is something that profoundly affects the lives of the people we represent, and I am surprised, to be frank, that there is not unanimity in the House to try to expand our health care system in this way and to get people the help they so desperately need.

I will tell a really brief story. I held a meeting on pharmacare, which had attendance by nurses and health care folks in northwest B.C. and concerned citizens. One of the nurses told this story about patients she sees come into the hospital for a very routine procedure, a colonoscopy, which is something that many of us will be getting in order to detect what can be really life-threatening illnesses. I have not had one of these procedures yet, but I very much look forward to it.

In preparation for this procedure, people have to take a medication in advance that allows this procedure to take place. That medication, at the time, cost about $40. For many of us, the cost of a $40 prescription to get ready for an important procedure is something that is affordable. However, the nurse said she was surprised by the number of patients who came in for this scheduled procedure, went home with the prescription and never came back for the actual colonoscopy because they could not afford the $40 for the medication.

That is what we are talking about. What happens to those people? They are not getting a diagnostic procedure that could save their lives, and some of them, a percentage of them, are getting sick and ending up back in our hospitals and in our emergency rooms. They are having to have surgery and some of them are losing their lives all because they could not afford medication that was not covered under our health care system. That is shameful and it is something that we in the House can change. We can change it today by voting for Bill C-64.

Why would anyone oppose the bill before us? We have heard some of the arguments and, frankly, it is somewhat surprising. I was listening to the member for Red Deer—Lacombe extolling what he sees as all of the various problems with it. Then he got to the fact that it would cover diabetes medication and devices, and he said something like, “on the surface of it, that is a good thing”.

This bill would be incredibly positive for a lot of people, yet we see opposition. We also see a cynical critique of the legislation, and that critique goes like this: The Conservatives say that the NDP and the Liberals call this a pharmacare bill, but it is nothing of the sort. They say that it does not go nearly far enough, and Canadians who are expecting this wonderful vision of pharmacare are going to be disappointed.

When Canadians hear that, they are going to think that the Conservatives want something even better, that they want coverage that goes even further and that would help more people, but no. What the Conservatives are proposing is to get rid of this legislation altogether and not to improve it one iota. The Conservatives have brought forward an amendment to kill it outright. That is not contributing to the conversation. It is not going to make people's lives better in this country. With all due respect, it is a cynical critique of the bill before us.

It is also incredible that in the Conservatives' opposition to pharmacare, they are parroting many of the same lines coming from big pharma. We have heard that most people will be worse off under the pharmacare program. We heard from the Conservative leader that most people already have coverage through their employer, and we heard that this law is somehow going to prevent people from getting their own private insurance. It is incredible that Conservatives and big pharma are sort of harmonizing in the same beautiful key of total nonsense. It is incredibly frustrating because none of this, of course, is true. This is a program that is going to help millions of Canadians.

We hear that health care is a provincial jurisdiction, yet nothing could be further from the truth because it is shared jurisdiction. If we look at the Canada Health Act on the federal government's own website, it clearly lays out that, while the provinces are responsible for health care delivery, the federal government is responsible for setting national standards and, of course, for funding health care, in part, through federal transfers. Therefore, this is very much in the federal government's wheelhouse and something I believe the federal government has a moral and a practical responsibility to fulfill.

However, despite all of this opposition from Conservatives to pharmacare, we are here on this historic day to move this bill through the legislative process and make it a reality. This is a bill that, among other things, enshrines the step-by-step implementation of single-payer universal pharmacare in our country, for the very first time, in accordance with the principles of the Canada Health Act. It is a bill that forces the government to develop a list of essential medications within a year of this bill's passing into law. It is a bill that establishes an expert committee that is going to guide the implementation and the financing of pharmacare right across the country.

I am very pleased that not only will this bill lay the groundwork, the foundation, for universal pharmacare that covers a wide range of prescription medications, but it is starting in its first phase with two major classes of medications that are going to help a lot of folks who are struggling with the costs. People in the House know what those two classes of medications are.

First is contraception, which can cost people upwards of $200 a month, and disproportionately that cost is borne by women in our country. When it is not affordable for people, they are forced to make other choices, but sometimes they do not have choices. Ensuring that people have affordable contraception is going to improve the lives of so many people.

The other class of medications is diabetes medications and devices. Anyone who knows someone who lives with diabetes knows the incredible out-of-pocket costs that can come with managing the condition. Diabetes Canada approximates that the cost of type 1 diabetes is upwards of $18,000 a year, out of pocket, and for type 2 diabetes it is upwards of $10,000 per year, out of pocket. These are the out-of-pocket expenses that our constituents are paying. With the bill before us, as soon as agreements are struck with the provinces, this program is going to cover those costs for Canadians, and I could not be prouder for having been part of the process of making that a reality here in Canada.

I am going to leave it at that. I know that the constituents I represent want this bill. I know the health care professionals who work in our health care system recognize the importance and significance of this bill. I hope everyone in the House of Commons votes for this bill and passes it unanimously into law as quickly as possible.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

In this debate this evening, we can lose a bit of the context, and that context is the historic nature of the legislation before us. I am so proud to rise on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and speak to Bill C-64, an act that will lay the groundwork for Canada's first national single-payer universal pharmacare system, a system that is going to help millions of Canadians, including many people in northwest British Columbia. The case for this bill is—

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Souris—Moose Mountain, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to today's debate as we discuss Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, and its amendment.

I think it is important to ensure that Canadians truly understand what the piece of legislation before us is and how it might affect them in the future. In fact if we read the amendment that has been put forward, we see that it states:

The House decline to give second reading to Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, since the Bill does nothing to address the health care crisis and will instead offer Canadians an inferior pharmacare plan that covers less, costs more and builds up a massive new bureaucracy that Canadians can't afford.

Unfortunately, much of what I am about to talk about in dealing with what the government has put forward is that we need to determine that it is going to be to the detriment of most Canadians, thanks to the NDP-Liberal government, which only continues to make life harder for those who are just trying to get by in difficult times like these. Bill C-64 is yet another example of an empty promise put forth by the Liberals in an attempt to please the NDP and maintain power in this country. There is virtually nothing for the vast majority of Canadians.

The document is a measly six pages long, much of which is preamble and definitions. I can almost guarantee that when Canadians were told that a pharmacare plan was coming, they were expecting a whole lot more than six pages that lack any of the necessary details like costs, timelines, formulary, which drugs are in and which drugs are out, and other relevant information. The reality is that the majority of Canadians, 79% of them, already have private health care insurance to cover their medications. Many of them are afraid of losing their plan.

The legislation, however, has become typical of the Liberal-NDP coalition government. Let us have a quote: “Bragging is not doing.” I wonder who said that. I will get back to it. After eight years of empty promises, brags, Canadians have lost trust in the so-called leadership of the Prime Minister. He promised affordable housing, yet housing costs has doubled across the country. Bragging is not doing; let us remember that.

The Prime Minister promised that the carbon tax would put more money in the pockets of taxpayers, yet 60% of Canadians are paying more because of that very tax. Bragging is not doing. In fact in 2019, his then environment minister promised Canadians that the carbon tax would not exceed $50 per tonne, stating that the price would not go up and that there is no secret agenda. However, after the election, the Liberals' hidden secret agenda came out, and the current carbon tax is at $80 per tonne and will be going up to a whopping $170 per tonne by 2030.

How are Canadians supposed to believe anything the government says when it breaks promise after promise, to the detriment of its own people? It does not take much to see that the sad little bill before us is simply a Liberal attempt to cater to the NDP, which has been propping the Liberals up and keeping them in power since the last election.

Since the pharmacare bill contains almost no details about how the program would actually work, I would like to touch on a similar plan that is about to be launched across Canada, more bragging, I hear. It is the Canadian dental care plan, which is set to start providing coverage. It is a great example of the Liberals' providing blatant misinformation to Canadians by omitting context.

They will tell us that the plan is a huge success because 1.6 million seniors have already signed up to participate. What they do not tell us is that Canada has only about 26,500 dentists practising in total, and fewer than 10% of them have enrolled in the new dental care plan, which also includes dental hygienists. There are eight dentists enrolled in New Brunswick. Ontario has 65 and Nova Scotia has six. P.E.I. has zero and Manitoba has seven. This is just to name a few of the provinces. Why is that? There is too much paperwork and signing of contracts, to name just some of their concerns.

Considering that Canada is already dealing with a massive shortage of doctors, the last thing taxpayers want to know and see, and have talked about many times, is the need to find yet another health care practitioner. That struggle is immense.

Another hugely alarming issue with the Canadian dental care plan that is also a major concern with pharmacare is the lack of consultation the government held with the important industry players. When it comes to the dental issue, the provincial associations stated that the federal Liberals started consulting them only in late November, just one month before the program was announced. One dentist stated that dentists were brought in at the eleventh hour. They asked why we started so late and whether we were rushing into a program that maybe we should be putting the brakes on.

Again, the lack of consultation has now become a hallmark of the NDP-Liberal government's agenda, as the Liberals also failed to consult with insurance industry stakeholders during the formulation of the pharmacare bill. If this is the Liberal track record on industry consultations that have the potential to greatly impact a key piece of legislation that would affect millions, then of course we need to be concerned that the same thing could happen with pharmacare.

Misinformation is also something that needs to be top of mind when dealing with the NDP-Liberal government. Initially, the government's dental care plan was pitched as being free, and yet now we know that is not so. The program covers only some types of dental care, and it does not adequately pay providers in line with the fees that are recommended by the provincial and territorial guidelines.

Will it be the same for pharmacare? One wonders. Canadians are going to be told not to worry, and then all of a sudden be required to pay for their medications despite the promises made by the government. Since the Liberals are completely inept at creating and implementing programs that actually work, this is unfortunately what Canadians have come to expect.

Since the pharmacare plan was first announced in February, physicians across the country have been vocal about the concerns they have with how the plan would actually work. Since the bill itself contains almost no information, there is worry that instead of filling the gaps left by public and private health care coverage, the bill could actually create more gaps, with more Canadians falling through the cracks.

There is also a lot of uncertainty over which drugs would make it onto the formulary. If there are extra steps involved in this, it would place an additional administrative burden on physicians, which is frankly the last thing Canada's health care system needs right now.

Furthermore, as we are all aware, wait times for health care in this country are longer than they ever have been. Currently, there is a median wait time of 27.7 weeks between getting a referral from a general practitioner and the receipt of treatment. This is an almost 200% increase in wait times since 1993.

We all know there are over six million Canadians without a family doctor, and we have overwhelmed emergency departments throughout Canada. Through ill-thought-out bills like the pharmacare one, the federal government would be burdening our physicians with even more paperwork and administration, instead of allowing them to provide the care that Canadians need. By increasing the administrative burden, there is also a concern that doctors, nurses and other health care providers would face greater instances of burnout, causing them to leave their professions altogether.

A very important part that the government continues to ignore is that the provision and administration of health care falls under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. It is not the job of the federal government to make decisions on issues like drug coverage, which the bill could certainly allow for. We need to respect the authority of the provinces and the territories to do what is best for their populations, as this is not a situation where Ottawa knows best.

One part of the bill that I personally take issue with is the fact that it would establish a committee of experts to make recommendations on pharmacare. The reason this concerns me is, yet again, the Liberals' track record when it comes to creating committees to create committees to create committees, ultimately doing nothing to address the issues they were created to address.

Ultimately, given that the pharmacare bill is so short on any details, we still do not know how big the committee would be and what the qualifications of the members would be. If the Liberals failed so drastically with something like just transition, which affected a small portion of Canada's population, how is anyone supposed to believe that they would handle this?

As an example, one year ago the Liberals pledged $1.4 billion for drugs for rare diseases, yet there is still no deal with the provinces. Therefore, once again, to quote the Prime Minister, “Bragging is not doing.” The NDP-Liberal coalition is all about brag and no action. Unfortunately, until the Liberals are out of office, Canadians will continue to pay the price of the Prime Minister's lack of leadership and his broken promises. It is time to end the bragging. It is time for a change, time to assist hard-working Canadians and time for a common-sense Conservative government.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a joke going around that says, “It's not knowing that a politician can be bought; it's knowing how little they'll let themselves go for.” For a member of the NDP caucus right now thinking that this is the misery they are suffering in the polls, the misery they are suffering nationwide, which is the same misery Canadians are suffering, this is all they managed to get out of the supply and confidence arrangement with the government today.

It is not a pharmacare program. Health care is actually a provincial jurisdiction. It should be delivered by the provinces. The bill would simply be adding contraceptives and some diabetes measures into it. I guess, on the surface of it, that is a good thing, but to the tune of $1.5 billion. If viewers watching at home actually believe this is all it is going to cost them, I will remind them that the government bought a $7 billion pipeline and built it for about $40 billion. Therefore, if history is any predictor of the future when it comes to what things cost under a Liberal-NDP coalition, then they should be looking at least to that example if not more.

To us, as Conservatives, the issue is one of provincial jurisdiction. I come from Alberta, and this is a very important issue to our province and to our premier. This is just another intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. We think that, during these financial times, when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, pouring more fuel on the inflationary fire is certainly not going to help. It is another financial albatross in the making, which Canadians cannot afford and are not willing to pay for.

It is not just me saying this, and it is not just Conservatives saying this. John Ivison eloquently stated in a piece that he published back on February 29, when the bill or this notion first came out, that this is “the woebegone child of a loveless Liberal-NDP marriage.” This is basically what we are dealing with.

It has become clear to me that the bill before us is basically the cost of keeping the NDP support for this Parliament under supply and confidence, and the coalition partners can take this until October 2025. It was supposed to be October 20, but it is going to be extended by another week to make sure that certain people here get the financial benefits they think they are entitled to. However, it just goes to show that there is only one serious opposition in the House, and that is the Conservative Party.

The NDP is not an opposition party but a willing accomplice to everything that the Liberal government has in its agenda. Its members have been witting partners in creating a massive inflationary deficit; setting restrictive policies towards, for example, lawful gun owners and natural health products, which they signed up for two years ago without even knowing they were going to vote in favour of that in Bill C-47 last year; impeding upon provincial jurisdiction time and time again, which is, of course, front and centre with this piece of legislation; continuing to cover up for the government's scandals, covering for it at committee and also here in the House of Commons; introducing soft-on-crime legislation or supporting that soft-on-crime legislation, which has turned our justice system into a revolving door; sending Canadians to food banks en masse, at a couple of million visitors, which is up over 300%; allowing housing prices to skyrocket; and neglecting our military to the point where our soldiers are basically relying on food donations while they are in Ottawa for training. I could continue, but I think members get the gist of what I am trying to say.

It is bad enough that NDP members backed budget after budget and shut down our work to hold the government to account at committee, but they are telling Canadians that they are doing their actual work as an opposition party. Well, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot be in opposition while they support everything that the government does. I do not buy it, and neither do Canadians.

A December 2023 Leger poll indicated that only 18% of Canadians listed the establishment of a national pharmacare program as a health care priority, and the promise was not included in the 2021 Liberal platform. Canadians did not vote for a party promising pharmacare, yet here we are, thanks to an NDP party that is keeping this weak and basically lame-duck government in office. It is no wonder that some provinces are already saying publicly that they are choosing to opt out.

Let it be known that the absence of the NDP as an opposition is also keenly felt in other areas. Just last year, as I was mentioning, the NDP-Liberal coalition passed Bill C-47.

I do not suppose anybody in the NDP was told, when they signed on to this supply and confidence agreement back in March 2022, that they would be asked to regulate natural health products in the same way as therapeutics, but they did it anyway. As a matter of fact, they made that commitment a year before the bill was passed, and it is going to basically shut down our supplements and natural health product industry when they are classified and rebranded as pharmaceutical drugs.

What did the New Democrats do when this came up for debate? They backed the budget instead of forcing the government to remove those four little clauses from Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. They had a chance. They could have flexed their muscles and said they were not going to support the budget implementation act unless the government removed them, but no such request was forthcoming, and the bill passed. It has caused unforeseen chaos in the natural health products and supplements industry across this country; consumers, of course, are rightly worried. In response, I had to table my own private member's bill, Bill C-368, to reverse these changes. This is just part and parcel.

New Democrats say one thing to Canadians but actually do another. Could anyone imagine such a thing as being the House leader of the NDP, for example, standing up and saying time and time again how much one does not like omnibus legislation, and yet gleefully passing Bill C-47. The NDP House leader has said this for the 18 years that he and I have been in the House together. However, he told the government that New Democrats would continue to pass every budget and every budget implementation act henceforth after March 2022. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot stand up and say New Democrats are going to hold the government to account while continuing to give it the keys to the house to do whatever it wants.

In the case of natural health product governance and regulations, New Democrats tell Canadians they are against omnibus legislation and that they are keeping the government accountable. However, as I said, they voted for Bill C-47, threw that industry into turmoil and then criticized me for giving them an off-ramp on the Bill C-368 debate last week. I was giving them a pathway to redemption, and all they could do was basically blame Stephen Harper for the mess that the country is in. I cannot even make this stuff up.

The most common questions I get from Canadians are these: When are we going to have an election? Who believes anything anybody in the NDP has to say anymore, when their actions are completely 180° opposite from what they say with their words?

It should also be highlighted that the bill was introduced with no public consultations whatsoever, which comes as no surprise to Conservatives. This piece of legislation has been pushed from a government with a terrible record on transparency. It is a government that regularly rushes massive changes with little regard for those people the changes may impact. It talks about the intended consequences, but it never fully understands the unintended consequences of the things it does, which is why we are in the mess we are in today.

The Conservative position on Bill C-64 is that the Liberals know this project is an expensive boondoggle. That is why they abandoned it in their 2019 election promise. Even former finance minister Bill Morneau noted in his book that a single-user system would cost an additional $15 billion a year. We cannot believe the $1.5 billion number, and that is why my colleagues here on the Conservative side and I will respect provincial jurisdiction and vote against this piece of legislation. We encourage New Democrats to change their ways before their party actually fades into oblivion forever.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to speak to Bill C-64.

Before I go any further, I would like to let the Speaker know I will be splitting my time with my good friend and colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain.

The debate today is about Bill C-64, an act regarding pharmacare. At least everybody is being told that is what it is about. I would rather call it, I guess, the so-called pharmacare bill because I think that “the cost of keeping the Parliament going bill” is probably a name that has already been used.

This bill is very tepid. It is not a national pharmacare program. This is actually just a piece of legislation that is meant to check a box to keep a supply and confidence agreement in place.

To the NDP members, I cannot believe they actually think this is the pharmacare bill they envisioned. I have not met a program the NDP members would not want to nationalize, but they say it is a very sad day when one—

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity today to speak to Bill C‑64, an act respecting pharmacare.

This bill represents the next phase of our government's commitment to a national universal pharmacare program. It proposes the foundational principles of national universal pharmacare and our intent to work with provinces and territories to provide universal single-payer coverage for many contraceptives as well as diabetes medications.

This is an important step forward in improving health equity, affordability and outcomes, and it could save the health care system money in the long term.

Public health care in Canada was built on the promise that no matter where one lives or what one earns, one will always be able to get the medical care one needs. Despite this promise, Canada is the only country in the world with universal health care that does not provide universal coverage for prescription drugs.

When medicare was first introduced, prescription drugs outside of hospitals cost less and played a smaller role in health care. Today, prescription drugs are an essential part of our health, helping to control chronic conditions, treat temporary ones, and aid in overall health and well-being.

One area that has seen significant changes is diabetes treatment. Over 100 years ago, thanks to a Canadian team of researchers, Frederick Banting, Charles Herbert Best, John J. R. Macleod and James Bertram Collip, insulin was discovered.

Since this monumental scientific discovery, there have been several advancements in diabetes treatment, from the introduction of fully synthetic human insulin to glucose monitors and insulin pumps. These breakthroughs have immensely improved the quality of life for people who have to live with diabetes, enhancing self-esteem, increasing social participation and improving the overall health and well-being of these individuals.

They have also come with higher costs, creating affordability challenges for Canadians affected by diabetes.

Outside of hospital, prescription drug coverage comes from a mix of private insurance, out-of-pocket cash payments and various provincial programs. While the majority of Canadians have access to some form of public or private insurance, about 2.8%, or 1.1 million Canadians, do not have access to private or public drug coverage.

Although most Canadians have some form of drug coverage, this does not mean that those with insurance have equal access to the prescription drugs they need. The existing patchwork system of private and public drug plans leaves millions of Canadians under-insured, and that means their out-of-pocket prescription drug costs create a financial burden that leaves them struggling to afford an essential part of health care.

In 2021, Statistics Canada found that more than one in five adults in Canada reported not having the insurance they needed to cover their prescription drug costs. Being under-insured can take many forms, for example, Canadians may have high deductibles, resulting in significant out-of-pocket costs before their insurance coverage even kicks in. They may reach the maximum annual or lifetime coverage limits for their insurance and have to pay out-of-pocket, or they may have to make co-payments, which are often 20% of the drug's cost on private plans and sometimes more on public plans.

All provinces have drug coverage to protect Canadians from catastrophic drug costs, but deductibles under these plans can range from 0% to 20% of net family income. In many cases, Canadians will never reach the deductible, leaving them without any support for their drug costs. This variability across the country creates a postal code lottery.

Let us consider the advancements in diabetes treatments. For a working-age Canadian with no private insurance, out-of-pocket costs vary widely. In some parts of the country, out-of-pocket costs for people living with type 1 diabetes can be higher than $18,000 per year out-of-pocket; for type 2 diabetes, they can be higher than $10,000 per year in out-of-pocket expenses. Even those with private insurance can face high co-pays or exceed annual plan maximums, resulting in high out-of-pocket costs.

Even for cases in which an individual is not accessing devices that cost thousands of dollars, they can face significant out-of-pocket costs. For example, we can consider a woman in her mid-twenties who is working a minimum wage job. An IUD, one of the most effective forms of birth control, can cost up to $500 with no insurance. Even with private insurance, a co-pay of 20% would be $100. While IUDs can last from three to 12 years and save money over the long term, the high upfront cost can make them inaccessible.

Under-insurance can be a particular concern for young adults who age out of their parents' private insurance but who do not have their own form of private coverage. Lower-income Canadians also make up a disproportionate share of the under-insured. While most provinces have put in place drug coverage for those accessing social assistance benefits, a gap still exists. Many lower-income households that do not qualify for social assistance continue to struggle with out-of-pocket prescription drug costs.

Employment factors contribute to differences in insurance coverage. People with low-paying jobs, such as entry-level, contract and part-time positions, often report less adequate drug insurance coverage. This may even discourage people from accessing social assistance benefits or from applying for jobs, because once hired, they may lose their public drug insurance coverage. However, many entry-level and part-time jobs do not offer drug benefits. One study found that only 27% of part-time employees reported receiving medical benefit coverage.

Under-insurance can have serious consequences. Many Canadians with high out-of-pocket costs report foregoing essential needs, such as food and heat, or not adhering to their prescription due to drug costs. Statistics Canada found that, in 2021, close to one in five Canadians spent $500 or more out-of-pocket for their prescription medication, and almost one in 10 reported not adhering to their prescription medication because of costs. This includes delaying filling prescriptions or skipping doses to contain costs.

When people do not take their prescription drugs the way they are supposed to, their health can suffer. This results in serious consequences for the individual and their household, and unnecessary costs to the health care system in the long run, as patients are more likely to visit an emergency room or to be admitted to hospital when they do not receive consistent treatment. For example, the full cost of diabetes to the health care system in 2018 was estimated to be around $27 billion and could exceed $39 billion by 2028.

I think we can all agree that no Canadian should be put in a position where they must choose between the prescription drugs they need for their health and well-being and putting food on the table. This is unacceptable, and it is why we are continuing our work to improve accessibility, affordability and appropriate use of prescription drugs as we move forward with national universal pharmacare.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare. I am extremely excited to talk about this, because this is a very important program, another transformative initiative for Canadians. We are again supporting Canadians. We can think back to 1968, when we brought in medicare. We knew the Conservatives were against it then, and the Liberals brought it in; today, no one wants to get rid of medicare, because of its importance.

In this speech, I will be talking about the framework on pharmacare and also talking about diabetes and the three million people with diabetes, and how difficult it is for them. Also I will share some information about the pilot project we have been running in P.E.I., which has given us some information, as well as where we sit in the G20 when it comes to health care and drug care. Finally, I will talk about all those initiatives the Liberals have brought in, which are helping Canadians today and in the many years forward. It was the Liberal Party that brought those.

Let me start off by saying that this act is focused on certain drugs that we would bring forward, and related products.

Of course, my colleague will be joining me afterwards. I will be sharing my time with the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.

To continue, we are talking about certain drugs, such as contraceptives and diabetes medication. Again, as I said, there are over three million people with diabetes in Canada. Back in December 2023, we created the Canadian drug agency, and its focus is on three major areas. One is a formulary, which is putting up a list of all the drugs that would be included in this pharmacare program. Another is bulk purchasing. As some have mentioned already, we have already saved millions of dollars, and there are billions to be saved through that process, which will continue. Third, we will be publishing, of course, appropriate use of medication in Canada.

I also want to say that once this legislation is passed and receives royal assent, within 30 days the minister will appoint a committee of experts to make recommendations within a year, so that we can move on this as quickly as possible.

When I go to get some medication at the drug store, my pharmacist often tells me, “You have to do something for people with diabetes. The cost is unbelievable. Many Canadians are facing a cost they cannot afford to pay. You need to come forward with some type of initiative.” I am so pleased to be here today to talk about that.

In the last decade, we have seen a doubling of the number of people facing challenges with diabetes, which is extremely important. Today, 3.7 million people are living with this. If we do not do something to help them, 25% of those people have indicated that they cannot afford to pay for that medication. If we do not treat that disease, we know what some of the end products would be, and they are not very good. We are talking about blindness. We are talking about amputation. There are all kinds of challenges that come with that.

Just for insulin, for type 1 or type 2 diabetes, the cost can range anywhere between $900 and $3,000 or $4,000 a year, which is extremely high. The good news is that we are going to work with the provinces and territories and have a deal, so that they can have frontline services for these individuals.

Diabetes Canada said, “We are very pleased with the government's commitment to prioritize improved access to diabetes medications and devices. This monumental step demonstrates a genuine dedication from our political leaders to enhance the well-being of the over four million individuals living with diabetes in Canada.”

For example, last year in June we started a pilot project in P.E.I., and from that pilot project we have seen the medication costs drop by over 60%, helping the residents of P.E.I. In a very small province, they have already saved up to $2 million, out of pocket. That is extremely important, and when we talk about affordability, this is another step forward that our government is bringing to the table.

Where do we sit in the G20? Well, it is important. People ask why we are bringing this in. We are bringing this in because we probably should have brought it in before, but the time is now. We are the only country in the G20 that has health care insurance but yet does not include drugs. The U.K. has included some prescription drugs. Australia has a mixed formula of private and public. France has, of course, a health care system and is now paying significant portions toward drugs. There are other countries in the G20 that have some type of pharmacare, including Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, etc.

According to a CBC article, “the federal Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare, led by Dr. Eric Hoskins, stressed how people's lives can suffer if they skip needed prescription drugs, and noted a Canada-wide program could eventually lead to system-wide savings of nearly $5 billion annually.” When they talk about how much it would cost, we could actually save up to $5 billion. I think that is also a very easy answer as to why we should move forward.

When I talk about our government, the values and ideology of the Liberal Party have always been to tighten up the gap, help the most vulnerable and make sure that all Canadians have opportunities to be successful. Let us look at some of the things that we brought forward: 1968, medicare; 1969, the Official Languages Act, making both languages the official languages of Canada; 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which all Canadians should be very proud of. Some of the opposition members are hesitant today on some pieces of the charter and we will see where they go with that piece.

There is the new and improved universal child benefit. When the Conservatives had it, it was 30% to 40% less and it was taxable; now it is not. There is the new and improved CPP, in 2019, which went from $11,400 a year to almost $20,000 a year. Those are programs that are helping every Canadian. These are opportunities. This is what makes Canada great. This is why people want to move to Canada.

Let me speak about some more initiatives that we are bringing to the table. The national school food program would help over 400,000 young people. The new disability program would help over 600,000 people with disabilities, who we know comprise most of the individuals living in poverty. Those are major initiatives to help. We are also building the dental care program. Nine million Canadians would have access to the dental care program. These are big numbers. There are many Canadians who have challenges, and our government has been focused on how to support the individuals facing those challenges.

I am going to end with something that Canadians must listen carefully to. If the Conservatives ever came to power, what would they cut? They do not want to tell us. They say “a dollar for a dollar”, so if there is a deficit of $40 billion today, we know they are going to cut $40 billion tomorrow. That we already know; we just do not know which programs. Therefore, I am going to ask the Conservatives. Would they cut pharmacare? Would they cut dental? Would they cut the disability benefit for people with disabilities? Would they cut the school food program that we have been talking about for 20 years? Would they cut the CCB, which is helping young families? Would they cut the early learning and child care program? I do not know. I am sure the Conservatives do, and I would love for them to share that with Canadians.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, to highlight two major concerns. The first is the federal government's intrusion into matters of provincial jurisdiction, and the second is budgetary concerns.

This neo-liberal initiative, which came from the Liberal-NDP coalition, raises serious concerns because of its impact on provincial jurisdictions. During its nine years in power, this Liberal government has not even been able to properly and competently manage its own files. How, then, do the Liberals think they can get away with interfering in provincial health care by imposing Bill C‑64 on the provinces, including Quebec, which has been offering Quebeckers its own pharmacare program since 1997, so for nearly 30 years?

Instead of continuing to overstep its boundaries by interfering in provincial affairs, the government should focus on matters within its jurisdiction, such as managing passports, fighting crime, fixing the immigration system, which it broke, and cutting inflationary taxes. These are just a few examples of areas where it needs to direct its attention and energy, instead of investing time and money in provincial matters.

A pharmacare program is not a program that should be set up at the federal level. That is a provincial responsibility. This arrogant, pretentious government wants to impose its science when it totally lacks the authority to manage this type of file.

Was this pharmacare program designed in close co-operation with all provinces, territories and indigenous peoples? Was it developed following a thorough review of what already exists in each of these areas of responsibility? Is it the result of thoughtful consultation with experts and stakeholders? We know the answer: Of course not.

We have here a shameful attempt by the Liberal government to stay in power thanks to the support of the NDP. The Journal de Montréal's Yasmine Abdelfadel writes, and I quote:

Make no mistake: Justin Trudeau has sold his soul to the NDP. The New Democrats are the ones who are really in power, the same New Democrats that did not have the support of the public in the last election.

This initiative seems well intentioned, but it is not. Because the Liberals only hold a minority, they found a dance partner, the NDP, which is keeping them in power in exchange for the implementation of various measures that the New Democrats care about, like dental care and pharmacare, the issue that is before us today.

Canadians did not vote for that or for the NDP. Only 17.7% of Canadians supported this far-left party in the last election.

Also, Radio-Canada notes that neither dental care nor pharmacare were part of the Liberals' election platforms.

Despite what they want us to believe, this pharmacare bill is therefore no reflection of the NDP-Liberal coalition's benevolence toward Canadians. It is mere political and electoral theatre. To suggest otherwise is to lie to Canadians.

Now, getting down to dollars and cents, this pharmacare plan, as proposed, would generate massive costs, a concern that seems to have been glossed over, if not completely ignored. In a report published on October 12, 2023, the Parliamentary Budget Officer wrote the following:

...we estimate the incremental cost to the public sector (that is federal and provincial governments combined) to be $11.2 billion in 2024-25, increasing to $13.4 billion in 2027-28.

I would remind the House that the Parliamentary Budget Officer thinks the total is going to reach $40 billion.

I find it hard to trust in the current government's ability not only to implement an effective pharmacare program, but also, and more importantly, to maintain it over the long term. A government that has proven repeatedly since 2015 that it cannot maintain a balanced budget and is fiscally incompetent does not exactly inspire confidence.

I think it is worth reminding the people watching at home that the national debt has doubled since the Liberals came to power in 2015. It now stands at $1.255 trillion. I also want to remind everyone that since we have to borrow money to pay for the Liberals' reckless spending—because they are spending money they do not have—we are also paying interest. The interest on this unbelievable debt is $54 billion. That is more than the total amount of health transfers to the provinces, and it is the equivalent of all the GST paid by Canadians. This money is being thrown away to pay for the creation of programs that already exist.

Access to medication is a major concern for Canadians, which is why it is imperative that we carefully examine the viability of such a program, so as to be absolutely certain that it will last over the the very long term. More than anything else, it is hard to justify creating such programs, which would require additional bureaucracy and uncontrolled spending, when the vast majority of Canadians, four out of five, or 80% according to Statistics Canada, already have drug coverage in their respective provinces, coverage that is even broader than what is proposed in Bill C‑64.

Here is what Quebec's health minister, Christian Dubé, had to say to La Presse:

Not only is the government refusing to give us the money we asked for in federal health transfers, but it wants to interfere in an area of Quebec jurisdiction. The federal government knows full well that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction. We've had our own drug insurance program since 1997. It's been nearly 30 years. We also probably have the broadest drug coverage of any Canadian province.

By the way, he also pointed out that 45% of Quebeckers are entitled to drug insurance coverage through the public plan and that 55% of Quebeckers have private insurance. Guess what? Fifty-five per cent plus 45% equals 100%.

The federal government has caused countless crises in Canada since coming to power. Canadians continue to be both witnesses and victims of this incompetence every day in things like immigration, passports—we are starting to see lineups again—the correctional system, the use of food banks or the lack of affordable housing across Canada. Do my colleagues know that since the Liberals came to power in 2015, the public service has grown by 40% and hired 100,000 public servants?

I am going to quote a sharp mind on the subject of bureaucracy. I would not bet that he is a Conservative. Listen to this:

Like a black hole, it can also absorb astronomical budgets without leading to an improvement to public services.

Look at the Phoenix pay system, the chaos in immigration management, the ArriveCAN saga, the passports saga, the airports saga, etc. Despite the huge amounts of money squandered on new programs administered by an armada of public servants and the gigantic debt it has run up, the [Liberal] government's incompetence at delivering effective services to the public continues to defy expectations.

That is a quote from Boucar Diouf.

I want to close by quoting Gérald Filion, an economics journalist who is very well respected in Quebec. In his opinion, the government is creating a lot of programs and economists are concerned about the impact that will have on Canada's credit rating. The creation of many expensive programs that must be maintained in the future means additional spending.

All of the provinces offer coverage, particularly Quebec. We therefore recommend that we not go forward with this bill because we cannot afford it right now with this government's reckless spending.

The House resumed from April 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑64, An Act respecting pharmacare, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C‑64—Time Allocation Motion

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate right now is on time allocation on Bill C-64, and I would put it to the Minister of Health that I would love for us to be having a debate on an actual proposal for pharmacare.

It has been since June 2019 that the former Ontario health minister, Dr. Eric Hoskins, gave the government and this country clear direction that we need a national pharmacare program. We are the only country in the world with a national health care program that does not automatically include the provision of needed prescription drugs. We know from the Hoskins report that, properly implemented, a full national pharmacare program will save this country $5 billion a year at least.

However, the bill is picking out only two things, which is what is so strange about this bill and why I object to the debate being closed before we can actually discuss it. Why are we only talking about reproductive health care and diabetes medication? What that may end up doing is giving those opposed to pharmacare evidence that it costs more than it is worth, when we need to prove to everyone concerned that national pharmacare will save our health care system money and ensure Canadians get the health care they need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the minister when he said to allow this House to do its work. Allowing the House do its work also means not limiting debate. I know the minister to be a reasonable man. Is he not embarrassed to be limiting debate?

Bill C‑64 includes some extremely important powers. There is a danger. No one will be surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois is against encroachment, against jurisdictional overlap, against what will likely be a waste of public funds on administrative redundancy. I think it is important to take the time to debate this properly.

Is the minister not embarrassed to be limiting the time for debate?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at the second reading stage of the bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.