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

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question about incompetent Trudeau government overspending. Of course, it raises the ire of members on the other side sometimes when I talk about the Trudeau government of the 1970s and 1980s and the devastating cuts that resulted in the mid-1990s of 32% over two years from 1995 to 1997 for spending on health care, social services and education.

I am wondering if the hon. member shares the same concern about the incompetent Trudeau government overspending of the 1970s and 1980s and also of his own Liberal government as it relates to our ability to fund important social programs in the future.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member that it would be incompetent for any government not to invest in health care for Canadians.

I would ask the member, if he thinks that this is wasteful spending, if he would cut the spending. Would he not provide pharmacare for Canadians? What else would he cut? Would he cut the Canadian dental care plan, which is now helping millions of seniors, just starting a few days ago, and has the incredible potential of improving people's lives? Is he going to cut $10-a-day child care, which is helping so many families? I would suggest to the member that it would be incompetent for any government not to invest in the important needs of Canadians by making their lives more affordable.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Does my colleague think that the pharmacare system they want to put in place will be ineffective if the government gives Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation?

What is that going to change given group purchasing is already happening? The group purchasing argument no longer holds water. There is no other argument.

Why not respect Quebec's will? The member does not live that far away. He must have some understanding of Quebeckers. I would like to have a nice honest answer to that.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will suggest to the member that this is an incredible opportunity for us, as a federal government, to work closely with provinces and territories. We have much to learn from Quebec. The member for Winnipeg Centre mentioned a few things earlier in her debate. Quebec has been a pioneer and a leader, whether it is pharmacare or child care. We have an opportunity to work with each other, to learn from each other and to replicate the models that work best for all Canadians.

Our federation works best when all orders of government, in this case, federal and provincial governments like that of Quebec, are working together to find solutions for all Canadians, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to ask my colleague about Canada's placement in the world regarding subsidized or free contraception. More than 25 countries worldwide, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, have offered subsidized or free contraception since as far back as 1967.

I wonder if the member can respond by giving us his views on why it is so important for Canada to join other countries regarding this important legislation so that we can ensure better protection for women.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the member for Nunavut, along with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, for joining me on Sunday in support of Christie Lake Camp, which is a worthy organization in Ottawa, in my community, raising $20,000 to support kids from priority neighbourhoods. I must say the member for Nunavut is an excellent basketball player, so it was a great afternoon.

I agree with the member that we need to catch up with many countries that allow for free contraception. It is about the autonomy of women. It is making sure that women are able to make decisions about their own lives. By passing Bill C-64, we will take the very important step of making sure that Canada really values women and gives them the autonomy they deserve as equal citizens.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to give a shout-out to the Abbotsford Rugby Football Club, which won the provincial championships over the weekend. The division 1 side has faced a lot of adversity. Our fields were flooded during the big flood in Abbotsford a few years ago. This team has really built back. Big congratulations go to Coach Chambers and all members of the squad on the game-winning kick by Mr. Rowell. Congratulations to all the boys for their accomplishments.

Now, I turn to Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare. As my colleague, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, said in the House in April, the half-baked pharmacare plan being debated is truly about preserving the costly NDP-Liberal coalition.

In order to ensure that the coalition survives the next fixed election date, so many members can lock in their pensions, the NDP has agreed to a pharmacare plan that covers only two categories of drugs, while costing a billion and a half dollars and adding even more bureaucracy and gatekeepers to the already extremely bloated federal government.

There are 97.2% of Canadians who already qualify for some form of prescription drug coverage. It is important that we work to ensure that the 1.1 million Canadians without coverage can access pharmacare, but the proposed system would leave them woefully under-insured and no better off. In the context of British Columbia, we already have coverage for contraceptives through our provincial government.

What we have in front of us today is not a universal pharmacare system, as the NDP-Liberal government has been campaigning. It is a diabetes medication and contraceptive coverage system.

The member for Ottawa Centre just said in his speech that in 2028, diabetes alone will cost the medical system in Canada over $40 billion. Even the money put forward in this bill is only a drop in the bucket, and I wish the members of the NDP-Liberal government would come clean about misleading Canadians about what they are doing, because all of us have had constituents come to our offices and ask when the universal drug coverage will kick in. I am sorry to say that it will not; this is a PR exercise by this government, and it is shameful.

Canadians know how much a promise from the Prime Minister means, and it is not very much. This is the same Prime Minister who promised to balance the budget, or rather, that it would balance itself. This is the same Prime Minister who promised a $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer that is yet to be delivered. This is the Prime Minister who promised British Columbians a universal day care system at $10 a day. Good luck trying to find that in our lifetime.

This is the same Prime Minister who promised that interest rates would stay low for a very long time, right before spending more money than any government in Canadian history and driving interest rates higher than they have been in decades. This is the same Prime Minister who has led to all of our GST payments, on every purchase we make in Canada, solely servicing the federal debt. Let that sink in. Every time we buy something, the taxes that we pay are only paying for the mistakes of the member for Papineau.

The only goal of this bill, as we all know, is to appease the NDP and avoid an election the government knows it would lose.

Speaking of the New Democrats, they really ought to be ashamed of themselves for even agreeing to this plan. For decades, they have campaigned on a single-payer pharmacare system, and now that they finally have a sliver of power in this Parliament, they fold and accept a half-baked plan that would cost taxpayers billions while failing to provide coverage for the vast majority of medications Canadians rely on, which the NDP promised to deliver. Shame on them.

The leader of the NDP loves to say that he will win the next election and often starts phrases with “when I am Prime Minister”. If he truly believed what he was saying, why does he continue to prop up that failed government, and why did he agree to this plan, which fails to cover the vast majority of drugs and treatments? If they are going to do it, they should go all in and take a risk. They are not willing to take a risk, because it is just about covering their own butts and getting their pensions.

The bill could have negative—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is rising on a point of order.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I fully acknowledge that I said the leader's name, but I also know that we cannot say things like saving “butts”. That is my understanding, and I am just pointing that out. If he could take that out—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We just need to be careful in the words we are using.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is rising on a point of order.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I find the members' words very violent, but I will—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the point of order from the hon. member seems quite prudish. I thought we heard earlier that we should be willing to more openly talk about certain things, but the member gets called out for saying the word “butt”, which I have never heard called unparliamentary before. I wonder whether there is a new standard of prudishness that the NDP is trying to set—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I do not want this to descend completely into debate.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member of Parliament probably could have finished eating his taxpayer-paid supper before coming in here. However, I would appreciate—