Mark Holland Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, I was struck by the member's comments about someone needing to go for a colonoscopy and not being able to afford the prep. I have heard this in my riding as well. I have heard it in regards to dental care also, that they are not being able to pay the $5 or $10 to go to dental care.
I would just ask the member if he could share how important it is that people have basic access to medication to stay proactively healthy.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, this is something I did not have time in my speech to get to, but the reality is that when people are able to take the medication that their doctors prescribe, they are often able to get better. When they get better, that means they are not showing up at the doors of the emergency room. They are not ending up in hospital beds for long hospital stays. We know that it costs $1,000 a day to have someone in our hospitals, and these are all costs that are borne by our system.
The bill before us is about making people's lives better, first and foremost, but also, when we look down the road at public pharmacare, universal pharmacare, we see that it is going to save our society, as a whole, billions of dollars through bulk purchasing and through allowing people to lead healthier lives. I think that is a huge, positive move in the right direction.
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Madam Speaker, those at home watching this may be wondering who does not want this. This is child care 2.0. However, the reality, as we know, is that, like this morning, there was a British Columbia mother who was saying that she was going to be homeless because she cannot find child care.
I just had a text from a dentist. I asked them what they thought of the dental program. The reply was that it is an absolutely amazing election slogan. That is exactly what has happened here.
My question to the member opposite, who props up the Liberals continuously, is this: Why does he think the Liberals will actually deliver this? It is almost abusive to watch what they do to the NDP because they will not deliver what they said they would. My question is this: Is he okay with that?
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, pointing out the shortcomings of health care programs is an argument to make them stronger, not to gut them and to get rid of them altogether.
However, I will ask my colleague this question: Looking forward a year from now, when her constituents in Kawartha are looking west to British Columbia and are seeing that their fellow Canadians are getting their diabetes medication, their diabetes devices and their contraception provided for free under universal pharmacare, how is she going to explain to her constituents that they are not part of that program because her province did not get on board because she did not support it?
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.
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing the poem by her daughter. I think it is very special.
We have come a long way, because there was a time, I can certainly remember, when talking about menstruation cycles and so on was very taboo. Here we are in the House of Commons, and we can talk about it. We need to talk about it because contraceptives are a very important priority for the pharmacare act that we are discussing tonight. I would like to hear from my colleague because she alluded to this. For people who are not insured or who may be working but are under-insured and still cannot afford the care they need, could she tell us about the stigma that can surround vulnerable groups when they are seeking proper medical care?
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, I think about those who have episodic health conditions where they might go to work on a regular basis but have episodes. One I think about is debilitating menstrual migraines. A lot of teenagers go through this, and they do not necessarily have access to medication for that. Lots of teenagers who go to university are no longer on their parents' plans, or they do not have a plan and cannot get access to this. I know a number of young women who have come through my home, as I have three daughters. They have suffered because they could not afford access to any kind of medication for their menstrual headaches. It is unbelievable. They cannot work, and they cannot go to school. It takes them out of the workforce, and it takes them out of their school time. It is really not fair, and that is just because of the price of medication.
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Madam Speaker, I want to put on the record that the best thing we can do for women is to give them financial autonomy and make life affordable so that they can make the choice to leave an abusive relationship. Under the Liberal-NDP government, domestic violence is up 72%.
The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association has stated that the bill “will spend billions of dollars unnecessarily on drugs for people who already have coverage.” With a cost-of-living crisis, and an inflationary deficit where people cannot afford to live, is the hon. member okay with this wasteful spending?
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, I think that just magnifies my point. It made me think about the fact that the member here wants to control what women can have. Women can have this, but they cannot have that. We want them to go out there and work. There is a saying that says everyone should live like that, but then the Conservatives say that nobody should live like that. What I am saying is that there should not be a choice between women only having a little bit of this, but are not being given that.
In Canada, every Canadian deserves to be able to fulfill their life in work, in school and with family. Whatever their choices are, they should be able to fulfill them. Pharmacare is a fundamental piece of that, not just on contraceptive and diabetic medication, although we are starting with those two, but with all kinds of medications that keep people alive in this country.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, and I want to share a secret: I find it difficult to sit with the NDP members. I should start by saying that, for the most part, they are very nice and I get along well with them. Our values are very similar. The problem is that they are not sitting in the right Parliament. The notion of areas of jurisdiction seems abstract to them. They cannot seem to grasp that concept.
Perhaps it is because they are not from Quebec and they do not understand that, in Quebec, the Quebec government plays a greater role in people's lives than other provincial governments. I find it difficult because we often find ourselves voting differently, even though we share the same values and agree on the fundamentals.
The question I would like to ask my colleague is this. Considering that, through the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, the matter of group purchasing to reduce drug costs has already been settled and therefore that argument does not hold water, would my colleague still be able to sleep at night if the government were to say that Quebec has the right to opt out with full financial compensation, that everyone has pharmacare and that everyone is happy?
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, I have stood many times in the House to say how wonderful it was and is to raise children in Quebec. There is access to many programs that are not available across the rest of the country. I have spoken before about the access to swimming lessons, diving lessons and sports, which are all affordable and accessible in Quebec. Everyone should have access to those types of life-changing and family-changing opportunities. I think there is always a way for the Bloc to come and want that for everyone in Canada.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I hope I do not embarrass him over the next ten minutes.
I am not sure if my colleagues heard the Prime Minister when he said that people, and I am quoting him because I do not speak this way, could not care less about jurisdictional bickering. That is what the Prime Minister said when asked about pharmacare and dental insurance. A recent Leger poll shows the opposite, that 82% of Quebeckers hope that the federal government will respect provincial jurisdictions. What is more, 74% of Quebeckers believe that Ottawa should get approval from the Government of Quebec before implementing programs like pharmacare and dental insurance.
Let us settle this right now: People do care about jurisdictions. They care because they know full well that the federal government falls short when it comes to supporting social programs that fall outside its jurisdiction. Let us set that aside. I would like to come back to something that seems rather important: Does Quebec society need the federal government to implement social programs? Is Quebec society lagging behind the NDP and the Liberal Party in social democratic matters? I have to say no, it is not.
The best family policy in North America is in Quebec. The most generous family policy is in Quebec, with parental leave and child care, which the federal government tried to copy 20 years later. Quebec is the least expensive place in North America to get a post-secondary education. Quebec is the most generous in terms of loans and grants for post-secondary education. Quebec also has the most progressive tax system. Quebec's inequality index is 0.31, as measured by the Gini coefficient. This compares favourably with Sweden's index of 0.29. If we look at Canada, we see that Canada has an index of 0.37. This is pretty close to the United States, at 0.42, which is one of the worst in the G7.
Quebec no longer needs to demonstrate that it is a very generous society when it comes to social programs. I am going to say it again, although I am certain my colleagues have been saying it all day: We already have pharmacare in Quebec, and while it is not perfect, it does exist. Furthermore, Quebec is in the process of trying to make the program meet Quebeckers' needs more efficiently. Why are we studying a federal bill to introduce pharmacare? Is it so the Liberals can maintain their coalition with the NDP? Of course it is. My colleague from Mirabel, who is a bit of a rascal, frequently says that dental insurance was put in place because the NDP is kissing the Liberals' feet—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I am sorry to interrupt the member, but there seems to be a telephone near his microphone. It is bothering the interpreters. We must ensure their health and well-being.
The hon. member for Jonquière.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Speaker, I apologize.
I was saying that the member for Mirabel, who is a bit of a rascal will go so far as to say that the NDP wanted to bring in dental insurance because they are spending so much time kissing the Liberals' feet that they are going to get a fungal disease. I would not say something so asinine. I think it is disrespectful, but it is one way to see who might be interesting.
When it comes to pharmacare, Quebec has been well ahead of the rest of Canada since 1996. No other province has really expressed a desire to have such a program. By all accounts, with the exception of Quebec, the rest of the Canadian provinces are ambivalent about having pharmacare.
The thing that upsets me most about this is that it is a prime example. The Liberal-NDP coalition is a prime example of “Ottawa knows best”.
Take the leader of the NDP, for example. A while ago, he drafted a letter to Quebec's minister of health. While he was writing his letter to Quebec's minister of health, he decided he would also contact Québec solidaire, the NDP's sister party in Quebec City. He therefore sent the same letter to Vincent Marissal, a Québec Solidaire MNA.
In his letter, the NDP leader told them that he was writing to explain why pharmacare was necessary. Talk about blatant paternalism. As I was saying, he wanted to explain why pharmacare was necessary. In Quebec, however, we have pharmacare already, of course, and we have made more progress on social issues than they have. Unfortunately for the NDP leader, he seemed to have forgotten at the time that Quebec already had pharmacare. Had he been a little more on the ball, the NDP leader could have asked his member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to contact the Québec solidaire MNA for the provincial riding of Gouin. Both of them are in the same office and in the same building. The member for Gouin could have explained to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie the finer details of this issue and the fact that Quebec already has pharmacare.
This is a prime example of centralizing federalism, or even what I call predatory federalism, which indiscriminately interferes in provincial jurisdictions.
As Quebeckers, we know that entrusting the development of our social programs to a neighbouring nation that does not have comparable coverage is out of the question. That would make no sense. Why would we entrust the development of our social programs to a government that cannot even manage its own jurisdictions? The French word for area of jurisdiction, “champ de compétence”, includes the word “competence”. When I think of the federal government, what immediately comes to mind is Phoenix, the passport crisis, its chaotic management of the border, immigration management without any real indication of acceptable integration thresholds, and ArriveCAN. The federal government is not doing a competent job of managing its own jurisdictions.
Despite that, the feds want to tell us how to manage our social assistance coverage in Quebec. Quite frankly, it is a bit insulting. Asking Quebeckers to let Canadians manage their social programs is like asking Canadians to let Americans manage their drug coverage. It would make absolutely no sense.
I want to point out something else that is rather important: Historically, the federal government has been unreliable when it comes to social intervention. A case in point is the occasion that members know I love to talk about, when Jean Chrétien, in a moment of clarity, admitted at the G7 that he could balance his budget by cutting transfer payments without ever having to pay a political price. The provinces are the ones who paid the price at that time. Let us all remember the drastic cuts that the Liberals made to health care after 1996-97, namely, $2.5 billion ongoing in 1996 and $2.5 billion in 1997.
Thus was born and introduced the fiscal imbalance. Who paid the price? Lucien Bouchard. Everyone said that the birth of neo-liberalism in Quebec began with Lucien Bouchard and the shift to ambulatory care, but that was certainly not the case.
I will conclude by reading the motion that was passed unanimously by the National Assembly. It was tabled in 2019, when pharmacare was first being proposed.
THAT the National Assembly acknowledge the federal report recommending the establishment of a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;
THAT it reaffirm the Government of Québec's exclusive jurisdiction over health;
THAT it also reaffirm that Québec has had its own general prescription insurance plan for 20 years;
THAT it indicate to the federal government that Québec refuses to adhere to a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;
THAT it ask the Government of Québec to maintain its prescription drug insurance plan and that it demand full financial compensation from the federal government if a project for a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan is officially tabled.
All parties agreed to sign the motion, including the Quebec Liberals for the Liberal Party. For our NDP colleagues, the Québec solidaire people also signed.
That explains why we will be voting against this bill.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, the Bloc party's position on the legislation does not surprise me. For separatist reasons, the Bloc does not believe in national programs. My issue is more with the Conservative Party's opposition to the legislation.
When listening to the speeches, Conservatives seem to acknowledge that the federal government has no role to play in health care. I would like to remind my Conservative friends across the way, as well as members of the Bloc, that there is a thing called the Canada Health Act. Canada does have a responsibility. A vast majority of Canadians, in all regions of the country, recognize that the federal government has a role to play in health care, and that goes beyond just handing money over to provinces.
We have the health care system we have today because the province of Saskatchewan kind of started it, but the federal government made sure all Canadians would be able to receive it. Would the member not acknowledge that, at the very least? Is that not a good thing?