Bill C-64

Pharmacare Act

An Act respecting pharmacare

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

Pharmacare Act

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, for the Minister of Health]

moved that Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to begin the debate at third reading stage of Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare. The legislation, as people know, is a priority for the government. It would establish the fundamental principles for implementing a national pharmacare program in Canada. Additionally, it would outline our plan to work with participating provinces and territories to deliver universal single-payer coverage for various contraceptives and diabetes medications.

This is an important step toward a national universal pharmacare system, as well as a historic event in the evolution of health care in Canada.

The core principles outlined in the bill are accessibility, affordability, appropriateness and universality. Accessibility ensures that Canadians can access pharmaceuticals regardless of location or income, while affordability aims to minimize financial barriers.

Appropriate use prioritizes patient safety and health outcomes, while ensuring the sustainability of the health care system.

Last, the legislation would advocate for universal coverage across Canada. These principles would shape our collaborative efforts with provinces, territories and indigenous communities to establish national universal pharmacare.

Our government has repeatedly and consistently demonstrated our commitment to public health care. Budget 2023 announced $200 billion over 10 years to better support the health and well-being of Canadians with a strong and effective health care system. More recently, in budget 2024, we committed $1.5 billion over five years to launch the new national pharmacare plan. The plan would help provide support for Canadians seeking access to contraception and for those living with diabetes. Let me focus some of my time on contraception.

Canada has more than nine million women of child-bearing age, who account for nearly a quarter of our population. For many of them, access to safe and reliable contraception is essential.

It would grant them the autonomy to be intentional about their family planning and pursue their aspirations for the future. This may involve advancing their education or their careers, delaying starting a family until they feel prepared or choosing not to have children at all. Affordability has been recognized as the primary obstacle in accessing birth control. This can lead to individuals' not using it consistently and may discourage them from opting for the most reliable method available.

Consider oral contraceptives as an example. This type of birth control is priced at roughly $25 per month and carries a typical use failure rate of 9%. Compare this to IUDs, which cost up to $500 per year. Although IUDs are a higher initial investment, they provide coverage for five years and have a use failure rate as low as 0.2%. Women should be able to make the choice between different types of contraception, regardless of whether they can afford it.

Many Canadians are just simply not in a position to pay for these upfront investments. For example, a young, part-time worker who does not have drug coverage from their employer would struggle to pay for a $500 IUD. With limited income from sporadic employment, which is typical for many young adults, even the monthly prescription cost can present a significant financial burden. This is the reality for many Canadians, and it is a reality I have heard from some of my constituents in Ottawa Centre.

One study indicated that women and girls from lower-income families tend to use less-reliable contraceptive methods or opt out of using contraception altogether. This disparity emphasizes how socio-economic factors intersect with access to reproductive health care, identifying gaps in our health care system and perpetuating cycles of systemic inequality. Additional research has even shown us that providing contraception through public funding can actually result in public cost savings. The University of British Columbia estimates that implementing no-cost contraception has the possibility of saving the B.C. health care system around $27 million per year.

Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with Planned Parenthood Ottawa in my community of Ottawa Centre. Our conversation focused on a broad range of issues, but in particular we spoke of the impact Bill C-64 would have on the health of women here in our community. What became clear to me in that conversation was that contraception is not merely a matter of personal choice. It is an integral aspect of health care. It is a fundamental aspect of reproductive health, and it plays a pivotal role in advancing gender equality.

It was also made clear to me that, by ensuring affordable access to contraception, this legislation would advance gender equality. Preventing unintended pregnancies would enable more Canadians to participate in the economy, which would result in greater prosperity for all. This is crucial for building a more equitable society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.

I want to thank Planned Parenthood Ottawa for the good work it does, day in and day out. I was really happy to speak to its representatives recently to let them know of a funding grant it is receiving to continue doing this important work in our community. I am thankful for them for meeting with me and for educating me further on the impact Bill C-64 would have on women here in our community and across the country.

Moving on to the impact on diabetes, we can apply the same cost-saving principle that I was speaking to in the case of contraception to medications that treat diabetes. Diabetes is one of the most prevalent chronic disease in Canada, impacting 3.7 million individuals at present. There are projections that this number will continue to grow.

Many of us know someone with diabetes and have seen the devastating effects it can have on a person's quality of life. While diabetes has no cure, treatments are available to control it.

These treatments are not always affordable or accessible to those who need them. We know that 25% of Canadians with diabetes have identified that the cost of their medications has impacted their ability to stick to their treatment plans. Neglecting proper management of this disease can result in devastating consequences.

When we made the announcement introducing Bill C-64, I was honoured to join the Minister of Health and many community advocates, who have been working in this area for some time, at the Centretown Community Health Centre, which is also located in my community of Ottawa Centre. Prior to the announcement, we met with some of the social workers, the primary health care practitioners and nurses who work at the Centretown Community Health Centre, which is a fabulous institution in my community. In fact, I used to serve on the board of the Centretown Community Health Centre some time ago.

When we met, we talked about the impact of this legislation. With regard to diabetes, we spoke to a specialist there who told us countless stories of individuals who she meets, and treats, who ration their diabetes medication. They are unable to afford the cost of their medication due to their current circumstances. It was made clear that, when diabetes is not properly managed, it can result in severe complications, such as heart attacks, strokes, blindness and even amputation.

In 2018, the total cost incurred by the health care system due to diabetes was estimated to be around $27 billion, a figure that we can expect to increase to $39 billion by 2028. These figures emphasize the urgent need for effective measures to mitigate the impact of diabetes and its associated costs on both individuals and the health care system as a whole. Independent of the legislation, the Government of Canada revealed its plan to collaborate with the provinces and territories to establish a diabetes devices fund. This initiative aims to guarantee that individuals with diabetes will have access to the essential medical devices and supplies they need to manage their treatment, including syringes, glucose-monitoring devices and insulin pumps.

This, along with the framework outlined in Bill C-64 for universal single-payer coverage for first line diabetes medications, would prevent any person living with diabetes in Canada from having to ration their medication or compromise their treatment. These actions will benefit all Canadians by helping diabetics control their disease, making it less costly to treat over time.

I want to address the concerns that pharmacare might affect private drug coverage, something that came up in the conversation when we were considering this bill at committee. Bill C-64 does not mention private drug insurance or regulate any of its activities. I want to be really clear about that. Our work with provinces and territories to offer universal single-payer coverage for contraception and diabetes medications would benefit all Canadians needing those drugs, regardless of their insurance status. Since the initiative is focused, benefits provided by private insurance are expected to remain unchanged. That choice remains in place.

As the two examples just mentioned show, the high cost of medication has become a pressing concern for too many people in Canada. For them, access to affordable medication is still a major challenge.

When medicare was first introduced in the 1960s, prescription medicines played a smaller role in the overall health care system. They were primarily administered in hospital settings, and those distributed beyond hospital confines were generally low in cost, but that is not the reality today.

Today, medicines are a vital and regular part of maintaining one's health. We know that roughly 1.1 million Canadians lack access to private or public drug insurance. That is approximately 2.8% of our population. In 2021, Statistics Canada found that one in five adults in Canada did not have the insurance they needed to cover the cost of the medication. In other words, 21% of adults in Canada face out-of-pocket drug costs that create a financial burden. This can lead people to forego their basic needs, such as food or heat, or even lead people to ration their medications or choose not to fill their prescriptions at all. Canadians should not have to choose between buying groceries and paying for medication. Being forced to make choices like these has serious consequences. Whether they are skipping meals or doses of medication, or opting to go without, sets off a chain reaction of adverse effects on the health of individuals and can heighten the strain on our health care and social support systems.

We can do better and we must do better. While it entails a financial commitment, the alternative, which is not investing in our pharmacare, would result in far more severe health and financial repercussions, as we can see with the two examples I presented earlier.

It is worth also noting that Canada has one of the highest per capita rates of prescription drug usage globally. Despite recent improvements, the elevated drug costs and the fragmented nature of drug coverage pose significant barriers for many individuals in Canada when it comes to accessing the prescription medications they need. In acknowledgement of these concerns, in December 2023, our government announced plans to advance the establishment of a Canadian drug agency, in short the CDA, with an investment of $89.5 million over five years, starting in 2024-25. The CDA will be built from the existing Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health in partnership with provinces and territories. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health publicly announced its transition to the CDA on May 1.

Canada's drug agency, or CDA, will play a central role in leading and coordinating initiatives designed to improve the sustainability and readiness of Canada's drug system for the future. Bill C‑64 sets out three main tasks for the CDA.

Initially, the agency would prepare a preliminary list of prescription drugs and related products to guide the establishment of a national formulary. This formulary would outline the range of prescription medications and associated products that Canadians should be able to access under the universal, national pharmacare.

Additionally, Bill C-64 would entrust the agency with formulating a national bulk purchasing strategy for prescription drugs and related products in co-operation with partners and stakeholders, including provinces and territories. This plan would explore methods to lower the cost of prescription drugs, which could help alleviate financial pressures for both individuals and the health care system. The agency would be required to finalize both the preliminary list and the strategy no later than the first anniversary of the day on which this act receives royal assent.

Last, the agency would aid in the publication of a pan-Canadian strategy concerning the appropriate utilization of prescription drugs and related products. This report would be released within one year of the bill receiving royal assent. Canada's drug agency would also be obligated to provide updates on the progress of implementing the strategy every three years.

As we know, national universal pharmacare cannot be accomplished without the contributions of the provinces, territories and indigenous peoples.

Given Canada's size and diversity, each province and territory has unique needs and specific challenges.

To establish a national pharmacare program that is both effective and fair, it is crucial to foster strong collaboration between the Government of Canada and all partners. Each stride toward national universal pharmacare will be made hand-in-hand with these partners. Future funding to support pharmacare will be allocated to provincial and territorial governments by way of bilateral agreements. This funding would supplement, rather than replace, existing provincial and territorial investments on public drug benefit programs.

In the immediate future, we will draw insights from ongoing initiatives as we persist in our efforts to enhance accessibility and affordability for all Canadians through a national pharmacare program.

Since August 2021, for example, our government has been working with the Government of Prince Edward Island to reduce drug costs for patients through the improving affordable access to prescription drugs initiative. Since then, P.E.I. has expanded access to over 100 additional medications on its roster of covered drugs, including treatments for cancer, heart disease, migraine and multiple sclerosis, just to name a few.

As of June 1, 2023, P.E.I. lowered copayment costs to $5 for nearly 60% of commonly prescribed medications for its residents. As a result of this initiative, within the first nine months alone, P.E.I. residents have saved over $2.8 million in out-of-pocket costs for over 330,000 prescriptions.

In addition to the progress being made on a regional level, I am happy to also share some of the work being done on a national level to support our pharmacare efforts. Bill C-64 builds on the work we have done to make drugs for rare diseases more accessible.

In March 2023, we launched Canada's first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases. Supported by federal funding of up to $1.5 billion over three years, this strategy aims to enhance accessibility and affordability for medications for rare diseases, ensuring they are in reach for those who need them.

It marks the beginning of a national approach seeking to meet the need for drugs used in the treatment of rare diseases.

As my time is winding down, I want to say in conclusion that, in Canada, it is our belief that everyone should receive prompt access to the health care they need, when they need it, irrespective of financial needs. This principle is a core Canadian belief, and we are dedicated to defending it.

Bill C‑64 is a major step forward in our commitment to guaranteeing all Canadians access to affordable, high-quality drugs.

Our plan for universal coverage of contraception and diabetes medications would be life-changing for individuals, families, society and our health care system. While there is a lot of work ahead, we have already made substantial progress, from regulatory modernization to enhancing access to drugs for rare diseases, establishing Canada's drug agency and collaborating with the provinces and territories.

Passing this legislation would allow us to build on this momentum. We stand at the threshold of a new era in Canadian health care. We should seize this opportunity to invest in a stronger Canada.

I thank members for their attention.

I encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of Bill C-64.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious, and I hope that the member will give me a direct answer on this. There has been some real concern, because the way the bill is structured does suggest, as it talks about being single-payer but very limited in the scope of coverage, that it could have the potential of taking away current coverage that up to 97% of Canadians already have. This is something that I am hearing about from my constituents, who are concerned about the way the government has brought forward this legislation, the way it has partnered with the NDP, and that it has not had the conversations with private plan providers. There is real concern that Canadians would actually be worse off after the Liberals have passed the bill.

I am hoping that the member could provide some specific details around whether he shares the concern that up to 97% of Canadians could see less coverage after the bill passes than they currently have.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member directly that this is not going to happen. The choice is maintained in this bill. He asked for a direct answer, and I am giving him the direct answer. In fact, at the committee, we discussed this matter at length. The minister was very clear, saying that the choice will always be maintained.

As I said in my remarks, there is no reference to private health insurance. That is within the prerogative of individuals who have private insurance. In fact, it was also accepted by those who were representing private insurance and those who were representing organizations such as Diabetes Canada. They have been given that insurance, and they do not see within the legislation any provision that relates to the taking away of private insurance. That is how this legislation is structured, and Canadians across the country will be able to maintain their private insurance if they choose to.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about the contributions needed from Quebec and the provinces. Would he not agree that, when it comes to pharmacare, Quebec is already making a significant contribution with its hybrid program, which does cover everyone? Even people with no income are covered by the public component. We do have a public component.

First, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on whether it would be more cost-effective for the federal government to give us our share so that we can improve our own system based on the federal government's objectives, in order to avoid harmonization issues.

Second, given that any duplication really bothers me, I would like to know what the Canadian drug agency is going to do that the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux, the Quebec institute for excellence in health and social services, is not already doing in Quebec.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely clear that we will work along with provinces and territories. Delivery of health care is a provincial responsibility. I think we all accept that, and we are all together in our desire to serve Canadians better across this country in provinces and territories and to make sure that they have the best health care accessible to them. That is why, given the diverse programs that exist across the country, and the member opposite gave the example of Quebec, it is important that we work with provinces and territories as soon as this legislation is passed into law, so that we can ensure that, when it comes to diabetes and contraceptives, there is universal coverage for all Canadians in all provinces and territories, and the manner in which it is provided is, of course, working in tandem with the systems that are in place within those provinces and territories.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if anybody wants to see the deterioration and disappearance of public health care, they can come to Ontario. Last year, we had 1,000 emergency closures. This year, it is going to be higher. Now, if the poor emergency wards could only sell Budweiser, they might get the attention of Doug Ford and his grifter government, who are more interested in beer cans than they are in health care.

I raise this because of my concern that, while we are talking about improving health care for every Canadian, we see one party, the Conservatives, steadfast against it. We see the record of Conservatives in province after province of undermining, threatening and attacking public health care, and here they are, standing up in the House day after day, attacking pharmacare.

At least with Doug Ford, we know we are going to get a can of beer out of it. With the Conservatives, we are going to get totally rooked.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows my view on Doug Ford's government and how we can be better served in Ontario.

When I was knocking on doors in the last election, one of the messages that I heard repeatedly from my constituents was to work with all members of this House, all political parties. My constituents were absolutely clear on ensuring that we get things done. I am really glad that we have found a common path with the NDP when it comes to introducing pharmacare and the Canadian dental care plan, because in my riding of Ottawa Centre, and I am sure it is true in all constituencies across the country, that is what Canadians want. They want politicians to work together to find ways of improving their lives. This legislation would do this. It would ensure that, for once, Canadians would start getting access to pharmacare. This is framework legislation that starts with contraceptives and medications and that would improve the lives of millions of Canadians.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the benefits of being Canadian is that we come together and work together to build national programs. Historically, through the provinces and the federal government collectively, we have built a strong health care system. Provincially, we have a universal education system. These things work. Over the last few years, we have seen the introduction of benefits for pharmacare and child care. We have seen the introduction of a disability benefit tax credit and, of course, many additional programs.

Why is it important for us, as Canadians, to stick together and build these types of national programs? What does it do to the long-term impact of Canadians and this country as a whole?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Don Valley East, who had the honour of serving in the provincial legislature. He will remember when we worked together to create OHIP+, which started providing universal access to pharmacare for young people, which was a game-changer. It was unfortunate that Doug Ford gutted that program.

The member for Don Valley East is absolutely right. Our number one job and responsibility to Canadians is to make sure that we make their lives easier, and the way we make their lives easier, whether it is affordable child care or seniors being able to access a dentist or dental hygienist to look after their oral care, is to have programs available to make their lives better. That is what we all hear at people's doors. Those are the kinds of things people are concerned with, and that is the job we have been given.

In particular, in this Parliament, as we come out of the once-in-a-lifetime pandemic that we all lived through, so many structures within our society have been shaken as a result of the pandemic that we have to do this extra work, whether it is through Bill C-64 bringing pharmacare into our country, through $10-a-day child care, a Canadian dental care program or the unprecedented investment that we are making in our public health care system to ensure that Canadians know that their government is actually paying particular attention to their day-to-day needs, and this is exactly what we are doing.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for follow-up, because the member said Liberals promised that it will not happen, but what are the assurances that this is in fact the case? Time and time again, we see a litany of broken promises by the government, partnered with its coalition partners in the NDP. What assurances are there beyond their word?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the legislation, the choice is clear. There is no conversation about taking choice away whatsoever, so I encourage the member to have a look at the legislation.

Second, I would ask the member to support this legislation, to make sure that Canadians have access to pharmacare, to stop spreading misinformation, to stop creating fear among Canadians and to focus on initiatives like this one, which should not be a partisan issue, to help as many Canadians as possible from coast to coast to coast.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand in the people's House and to talk about the issues that are so important to them. I appreciate also the opportunity to have had a couple of questions to that previous member. If I could sum up, when I posed what are very legitimate questions about the plan that the Liberals have presented to Canadians, he basically said, “Do not worry about it. Just trust us, and we will take care of it, so there is no need to discuss it any further.”

I am sorry, but that is not how democracy works and that is not how this place works. I would suggest that this is part of the reason why, over the last nine years of the current Liberal government, we have seen a litany of failures on virtually everything that the Prime Minister and the government, propped up by their coalition partners in the NDP, have tried to accomplish. There is scandal. There is failure, and there is a series of broken promises that go along with it. As a result, we are seeing an erosion of trust in our institutions and outcomes for Canadians being decreased. At every step of the process, we are seeing that Canadians are worse off today than they were when the Prime Minister was first elected in 2015 on all these fluffy promises with zero substance. When it comes to the bill that we have before us, it is simply another example of that.

I will take us on a bit of a journey, if members would allow me. During the 2021 election, which the Prime Minister said would not happen but did anyway, and we all know what that is, Conservatives said very clearly that a vote for the Liberal Party was a vote for a coalition. We said that during the election, and yet the Liberals and the NDP said that it would never happen, that there would be no agreement and there was no chance. Those were their words. In fact, the media even started criticizing Conservatives for suggesting that this would be the case, yet it was only a number of months after the election in 2021 when we saw the so-called confidence and supply agreement, which is really just a very poorly negotiated coalition agreement.

Ultimately, we saw that the NDP gave away any bargaining power that it could have had in the context of a minority Parliament and just gave carte blanche to a Liberal Prime Minister and his government to do with that power what they wanted. There is the NDP, backing them up every step of the way. We have seen over the last two years or so that the consequence of that is a series of poor public policy outcomes, where the Liberals will stand up and peacock all day long about the success that they are showing and the work that they are doing for Canadians and whatnot, and yet when we look into the details, we see some of the most shallow policy outcomes, which I would suggest have a very small chance of even being actualized when it comes down to it. The joke that I have heard from a number of constituents, so I will share it with members, is about George Strait's song about having some oceanfront property in Arizona, and it is certainly that sort of sale. It seems like the New Democrats would be quick to buy anything that the Liberals are offering, specifically when it comes to pharmacare.

It is very relevant to the conversation, because it was at the last New Democratic convention where members—

[The Acting Speaker, Rob Morrison]

There is a point of order from the member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we need an appropriateness of quoting lyrics. I like George Strait, but it would be more credible if the member were actually accurate. It would be Simon and—

[The Acting Speaker, Rob Morrison]

That is debate.

We will carry on.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that neither this House nor any Canadian wants to hear me sing, so I will spare members of this House and Canadians that. I would suggest that it was when—

[The Acting Speaker, Rob Morrison]

There is a point of order.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay is himself out of order when he raises these irrelevant points about the lyrics, when the sole purpose of this is to interrupt the remarks of others. It is shameful. He ought to apologize to the House for his consistently shameful behaviour.

[The Acting Speaker, Rob Morrison]

The member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to apologize to my honourable colleague that his own backbench is interrupting him while he is trying to make sense of something that is not sensible. It is no wonder the member wants to interrupt.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was audible by everybody here that the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston referred to the member for Timmins—James Bay as a “moron”. I would suggest that you, Mr. Speaker, ask that he withdraw that comment, because that was extremely unparliamentary. He should apologize as well directly to the member.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to withdraw the remarks, and I do deeply apologize to the member for Timmins—James Bay who is indeed the model of decorum for all of us here. He sets the standard for all of us, along with the member from Kingston and the Islands—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Okay, I will accept it as having been said.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that when I start talking about the record and the failures of the NDP, all of a sudden they are quick to cause disorder. I would suggest that it is the embarrassment of their record that offends those New Democrats and why they seem to be so quick to buy anything that that Liberal Prime Minister is selling. I will outline specifically the definitive proof of why that is the case.

When those New Democrats, late last year, had a convention, they drew a line in the sand, saying that they would get out of that coalition agreement, they would not have confidence in the leader, the member for Burnaby South, and that was enough, they did not want anything to do with those Liberals and this coalition confidence and supply nonsense if they could not get the job done.

However, what was the first thing that the leader of the New Democratic Party did? Well, he paused and effectively said, “Well, you know, we simply need more time. We are working out the details of what that might look like.” Then there were some very concerning allegations about changing some of the electoral system and whatnot. We then saw that there were some red lines, which certainly members of that party talked a lot about, on how they were going to have this fulsome program that was going to be announced and it was going to solve every Canadian's problem. There was going to be no issue with it.

Then, what was announced? I would suggest that if we were to catch any of those New Democratic members off-camera, they would be sorely disappointed about the work that the member for Burnaby South did and the so-called negotiations that led to the program that we have here before us today, which covers little, costs lots and has many unanswered questions about whether the benefit would be actualized to Canadians who need it. I think that that is the proof point that this NDP is interested in nothing more than the photo-ops and the illusion that its members can have a communications plan. It is a sad state of affairs when we have such laziness masquerading as public policy. I would suggest that this debate that we have before us is proof point, and this offends those New Democrats.

In fact, it was interesting, because when we look back at the history of the CCF, and the many involved with that, there was a true desire to see that the social gospel movement was much of the driving force behind the history of why that party even started. Yet, they have abandoned those—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it interesting that the member opposite seems to be obsessed with the NDP and has not yet spoken on the pharmacare legislation at hand. I would ask that he get to relevance.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Relevance is a point of order. Actually, it is the best one we have had so far today. Let us stick to the bill before us.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how calling out the failures of the NDP not only offends New Democrats, but offends Liberal members of Parliament. It truly is telling of the level of absurdity that this place has descended into, when simply calling out the failures of this so-called confidence and supply agreement, this coalition, this poorly negotiated agreement that has propped up one of the most corrupt governments in Canadian history, that NDP and Liberal members would become so offended when we bring forward some things, including talking about the history of those parties. I will be happy to address some of the failures specific to the Liberal Party here in short order, for that member specifically, but it seems like that they do not want to hear those things because they are simply offended that somebody would dare question their pre-eminence.

I will get into the substance of Bill C-64 in just a moment, because the context of it is so important. The Liberals, backed up by the New Democrats, do not want an opposition in this place. That is why the Liberals bought off the NDP. That is why we see so often that the Bloc Québécois are quick to go with them. They want an audience, not an opposition. This is a sad state of affairs. This place has a long democratic tradition, where we should be able to discuss the affairs of the nation and have meaningful debates. Whenever somebody suggests very valid points of criticism, such as those I brought forward to the previous Liberal member, like our concerns about the impact that Bill C-64 would have on the coverage of many Canadians, the government's response has been to ask us to trust it. Many Canadians over the last nine years have clearly communicated their concerns to me and many of my colleagues. I know that many Liberals are hearing the same thing. As I have travelled across the country, in airports or in communities that, in some cases, are represented by Liberals, I have heard from individuals saying they have lost trust not only in the Liberals, but also in the way that the Liberals, propped up by the NDP, have conducted themselves over the last number of years. There is an erosion of trust in our institutions.

For the government to ask us to trust it is not good enough, when there a real risk that 97% of Canadians, who do have some form of drug coverage currently, may be at risk of losing some of those benefits. That is a real concern for so many Canadians. In this circumstance, the government has promised much and has truly delivered very little. Government members will stand up and bluster about how great this is and whatnot, but when it comes to what Canadians actually need, they are failing to deliver.

A clear proof point on that front comes from the government's work with provinces. The Prime Minister was quick to brag about going around the provinces to deliver his agenda. However, when it comes to the history and the way that this federation was built, health care is provincial jurisdiction. Now, the federal government does play a role in the federal health transfer. We have seen on that front that there is a litany of failures. In fact, the Prime Minister promised to tear up the previous agreement that would have actually resulted in more funding dollars, because it was tagged to inflation, than the agreement that the Prime Minister went around the backs of different provinces to sign. He was quick to talk and puff up his chest, yet he has not met with premiers since those initial discussions, despite saying it was so important to meet with the premiers nearly a decade ago.

We have even seen how different provinces are treated differently. There are some provinces that the Prime Minister has been quick to suggest the government is happy to work with and other provinces that they may not like the party that those people in that province elected. It is not a conversation around whether they should or should not like a particular political party. The government is quick to dismiss any province that would bring forward legitimate concerns. When the government tries to go around the provinces, it ends up ultimately putting Canadians and the care that Canadians expect and deserve at risk.

There is no question that we need to address some of the challenges when it comes to health care. That is why Conservatives have been talking so significantly about some of these things, including making sure that Canadians have access to care, especially when there is a shortage of family doctors. There are so many doctors who are not eligible to work in Canada today because there is no clear process for recognition. The solution to that is very simple.

We need leadership that will bring the country together, to figure out that path forward so that what could be tens of thousands of doctors could actually get to work delivering the care for Canadians, following that Hippocratic oath that they took when they entered medical school. That would be good news for everybody because it would address a shortage. It would increase productivity. One of the challenges, and it is interesting because one does not hear the Liberals talk very much about this, is that we have a massive productivity challenge in our country. When one has wait-lists, when one has long processing times, and this is not limited to health care but includes permitting for houses, benefits, name it, if there is a delay, it has a negative effect on productivity. However, it is specifically impacting productivity on our national workforce when it comes to health care.

Canadians are being forced to wait. A constituent of mine waited three years for a hip replacement because they were in their 40s. Because of the processes and the hoops that they had to jump through, they had to stop working and there were family challenges associated with that. Again, these other parties do not want to hear some of this stuff, because they would rather simply stand on an empty promise than actually address the real challenges that are facing our constituents. When it comes to productivity, if we can address some of those things, we will see our national productivity increase, and we will provide more doctor and nurses. It makes sense that one has a nurse that is trained at an institution and has the training that is required to deliver the quality of care that is acceptable in this country.

The proposal that the Leader of the Opposition has brought forward, which he has called the blue seal plan, would give certainty in a process that currently has no certainty. That is just common sense. For somebody who is looking for opportunity, looking for a future, looking to build what used to be known as the Canadian dream, which has been so much eroded under these Liberals, there would be certainty.

A physician, a nurse or another health care provider could come to this country and have certainty. What the Leader of the Opposition has talked about is that within 60 days they would be given the thumbs-up or thumbs-down so they could get to work or at least know then, going forward, what upgrading and what training needed to be done so that they could deliver that care that, obviously, they want to give to Canadians.

It is truly a shame that there are so many talented immigrants in this country who are not able to do the work that they trained so hard to do. That is an absolute disgrace, yet, with some political will, some collaboration and working with provinces, as opposed to pitting them against each other like what the Liberal government does on a daily basis, we could see solutions and better outcomes for Canadians.

There are serious concerns that I hear about, and I know many of my colleagues do as well. Because of the potential impacts of the passing of this bill, there would be an erosion or outright dismantling of private drug plans. That includes publicly funded drug plans that are delivered by private companies, as everybody in this place, and all public servants, the 400,000 of them or so, are experiencing, as well as with provincial and other levels of government.

In this process, we have not heard clarity. The Liberals will say that they addressed that at committee. Yes, it was asked. The questions were asked, but the answers were not given in any way that would provide certainty.

What does this mean? The bill talks about being single-payer, which may be simply fanciful language from the Liberals to appease their coalition partners in the NDP and means nothing. I would suggest that this is just as bad, because it is abusing the democratic process and just speaks to the poor negotiating tactics of the leader from Burnaby South, but we will leave that, because I think I addressed that appropriately in the beginning of my speech. This could practically mean that private companies would then be changing the way that they deliver those specifics. It would put employee benefits at risk, including when somebody signs up for a job. When somebody signs a contract for work, the benefit package is a part of the compensation package.

The Liberals have not done their job or their homework in terms of making sure that all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, as the saying goes. What they are doing could put some of those things at risk and directly impact the ability of Canadians from coast to coast to coast to access the drugs they already have.

That could mean simple issues, such as the pharmacist saying, well, this certain drug is not covered, but this one is, or outright not being able to get it covered altogether. This can be a huge issue in some cases. Further, it could scrap coverage plans, and there is no question that it will force Canadians onto the government plan. We see this as well when it comes to the dental care plan.

We have yet another example where there is big talk but little in terms of actual deliverables for Canadians. In fact, it is interesting. When we listen to the Minister of Health, he talks about how many people have signed up for the program. Even last week, he said how many people had registered for potential appointments. The language he used was truly a cop-out.

If the government want to deliver health care for Canadians, then it should get to work and work with provinces to ensure that provincial plans can be complemented and whatnot. However, that is not what the Liberals did. They signed an agreement, seemingly on the back of a napkin, to keep the NDP happy. This does not fulfill the promises and the objectives that they so publicly brag about.

The result is a very real potential that, in terms of outcomes, Canadians will not be better off after the Liberals have tried to fix the problem. This is the case when it comes to drug coverage, as we are debating today; when it comes to dental care, as has been and will continue to be debated; and when it comes to so many of the other things that the Liberals have promised.

What is the solution? Well, first and foremost, we need leadership in this country that will bring provinces together to address the challenges we face in ensuring that Canadians can get the health care they need. That includes mental health care. This is incredibly relevant when it comes to this conversation because the Liberal Party promised that there would be a Canada mental health transfer, yet we are now several years into a mandate and that promise has not been delivered on. I guess it was not negotiated on the back of a napkin in this confidence and supply agreement.

This speaks to how little the Liberals care about ensuring that Canadians have access to the care they actually need. We need leadership in this country so we can make sure that every Canadian can, in fact, have those better health outcomes and that Canadians can, once again, start to trust the institutions that we have worked so hard to pay for over multiple generations in this country.

I look forward to being able to answer questions on this and ultimately ensure that we get answers for Canadians.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke for 20 minutes about many different subjects, but he still did not have much clarity on a very simple bill.

Just so Canadians know, the pharmacare bill speaks to supplying people who are diabetic with medicine and supplies, as well as supplying people with contraception.

The member opposite said many different things, and he talked about process. Do you believe that the government should be in a place where it can provide people who have diabetes with medicine and women with contraception, yes or no? It is a very simple question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

What I believe in and what I do not believe in is not important. Maybe the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot could answer.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the bill were addressing those things, then so be it. However, there are far more questions than answers when it comes to access to drugs that Canadians already have and working with provinces.

When it comes to ensuring that Canadians have access to the care they need, the bill would cost a lot and deliver little. At the rate a which the Liberals have expounded upon failure, we see that Canadians should certainly not have high expectations when it comes to being able to deliver their basics.

I would simply say this: When the Liberals peacock about all their promises, they never talk about deliverables, because they have so little to show for all the dollars they have spent.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec realized a long time ago that it needed pharmacare. The Bloc Québécois is calling for Quebec to have the right to opt out with full compensation, so that it can improve its plan. That is also what the Quebec National Assembly called for unanimously, across party lines.

I have a simple question for my Conservative colleague. What are the Conservatives proposing for pharmacare?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is part of the questions Canadians have. They elect provincial governments that are responsible for delivering health care. They expect their federal government to work with the provinces. Have we seen that? The simple answer is no, we have not. We see a government that is quick to divide and demonize and that pits one province and one region against another instead of working for the best interests of Canadians. It cares more about political wins and photo ops than it does about seeing results. Not only are the Liberals a dollar short and a day late, but they also have no interest in ensuring that Canadians have access to the health care we pay for and deserve. This has become very clear.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done. The Liberals are failing at it. It is time for leadership at the top to ensure that we can bring accountability and a system that actually works for the best interests of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives seem to be ideologically opposed to the contraception components of pharmacare. We heard from the member for Peace River—Westlock, who exposed the Conservative agenda, which is to end access to reproductive freedoms for women and access to abortion. That has been very clear. He spoke out loud something that seems to be a hidden agenda of Conservatives.

I have been to Camrose and talked to people there. They have raised the issue of pharmacare. We know that pharmacare access to contraception and diabetes medications can make a difference of up to $1,000 or $1,500 a month. There are millions of Canadians who need access to these important medications. It is true that the bill just talks about those first two classes of medication, but it is going to make an important difference in the lives of 18,000 people in the member's riding of Battle River—Crowfoot when it comes to diabetes medication, as well as 25,000 people in his riding when it comes to contraception.

Are Conservatives ideologically opposed to helping people, or are they simply being cruel to the people who face the struggle, each and every day, to pay for their medication and put food on the table?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member wants to talk about ideology when he, along with his leader and every single member of the New Democratic Party, have abandoned any semblance of ideology that once existed. They have abandoned it for the pursuit of some false perception of power. They stand in this place and claim that they are solving all these problems; however, when it comes to the actual deliverables for Canadians, the very people the member is referencing in my constituency, and, in fact, in his constituency and all 338 constituencies across this great country, are not seeing the results that are being promised.

The member is propping up the Prime Minister; he has sold out to a false Liberal agenda that truly is a day late and a dollar short. The NDP and the Liberals are selling Canadians short, not only on the ability to access the care they need but also on the real conversation that needs to take place to ensure that we can have a better health care system that meets the needs of Canadians.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech and his quite accurate suggestion that there is a massive trust deficit in Canada today. Canadians do not trust their federal government, because of the many broken promises our country has been littered with.

Could my colleague touch on a few more of those proof points that show why Canadians are now so skeptical about the Liberal government, with its NDP coalition partners, being able to actually deliver a pharmacare program in the first place?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Abbotsford. He was a minister in a government that cared not only about making announcements but also ensuring that, at every step of the process, the hard work required to accomplish anything in government would be done. He and many others under the previous Conservative government were willing to roll up their sleeves and get the job done.

There are so many proof points that it would take days to litigate them all, but I would simply suggest this: I hear a very tragic thing from constituents. They say that there was a time when they could respect the institutions even if they did not like the government, but increasingly, because of the scandals, the broken promises and the ego-driven policies of the Liberal government, propped up by the sellout NDP, they have lost trust in our institutions more generally. That is a tragedy.

It is going to take work by Conservatives to ensure that we can repair the trust that has been so damaged by the Liberals and New Democrats.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about losing trust. I would like to say that Canadian women have lost trust in the Conservative Party.

You are standing there now, objecting to a program that would give contraceptives to women, when most of your caucus does not want women to have choice when it comes to other issues. For you to now say that we should not be providing contraceptives to 25,000 women in your riding, as well as other women across Canada, is absolutely absurd.

Could you please explain whether you support Canadian women or not?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I am not going to explain it. My colleagues should make sure they talk through the Chair instead of directly to other members.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, how do we know that Liberals are down in the polls? We know because they are bringing back these divisive issues. They want to play politics as opposed to working for the best interests of Canadians. The member, and so many from both the Liberal caucus and the New Democratic caucus, are terrified about the prospect of not getting their pensions, so they are trying to divide Canadians.

The Leader of the Opposition has been clear: Conservatives are here to work for Canadians, including Canadian women.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to that answer, I could not hear what my colleague was saying. The member for Kingston and the Islands, and many others, such as the member for—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I noticed it was really loud in here.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, be read the third time and passed.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have risen three times today because I was so eager to speak.

I am pleased to speak today at third reading of Bill C-64. We have been debating this bill for a long time. Clause-by-clause study took place last week, but we do need to wind up the debate at some point.

Before continuing with my speech, I would ask my colleagues to respect my right to speak and not talk over me.

First, to make things clear, if they are not already, the Bloc Québécois's position has not changed one iota: We are against Bill C-64.

I would like to remind my colleagues of the purpose of the bill. Obviously, a bill can have several different purposes, depending on which side we are on. Sometimes it may seem like a bill has a noble goal, but that may not be the case.

I would like to talk about something that is totally obvious to me but that people tend to forget when we get into these debates. Bill C‑64 addresses one of the 27 items in the agreement that the Liberals reached with the NDP in 2022 to stay in power by forming a sort of coalition with the NDP. This may have been in the NDP's best interests, although maybe it will want to argue that point.

I would like to remind the House of the wording of the second item in this agreement: “Continuing progress towards a universal national pharmacare program by passing a Canada Pharmacare Act by the end of 2023”.

They want to “continu[e] progress”. We often hear similar phrases in the House, phrases like continuing to move forward, continuing progress or continuing to do something. That is all very vague, in my opinion. I would imagine that pretty much anything we do is progress, even the bill we are currently discussing. Perhaps that covers the disagreement there was between the Liberals and the NDP on this issue.

As members know, the Liberals dragged their feet on introducing this bill. This bill was in the works for years. They were talking about it in 2022. It was introduced on February 29. They could not agree on the cost of the measure. Of course we would like to see a pharmacare act, but perhaps not at all costs, if my colleagues will pardon the pun.

This bill was introduced on February 29, at the very last minute, to save the agreement and to save the Liberals. I might add that it was also to save the NDP. I must say that I did not hold my breath at the time.

A moment ago, I talked about the purpose of the bill. I think that this bill was introduced purely for the purpose of garnering votes. It could have been introduced sooner, but there was an agreement. The NDP would not want to bring the government down. That is why I was not surprised when the bill was introduced this year, one year away from the election, just before the budget.

I also get the feeling that it may have been because the government is short on ideas. I have spoken many times about the government's lack of vision. It has been eight, almost nine, years since the government came to power. It will have been 10 years by the time the election comes around.

I have noticed that the House is copying the debates taking place south of the border. Take the debates over contraceptives and diabetes medication. It is not that I am not happy to see my colleagues across the aisle and next to me tackling the official opposition, to use a soccer term, here in the House over a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body. I was not unhappy about that. However, it is being done for the purpose of gaining votes. There is one party in the House that wants to limit women's rights. This may resonate with some people, even me, but it should not be done for that purpose alone.

In fact, maybe it was entirely arbitrary. The government did not know what to do, what to propose. It desperately wanted pharmacare, but it had no idea what it really wanted to do, so it thought about what could help it win votes. It figured that it could take certain debates from the U.S. bipartisan system and copy them here to pit the good guys against the bad guys.

In short, I am not saying that these billions of dollars that will be spent by the government are a form of pre-election advertising, but that is what it looks like. Again, Quebeckers and Canadians need to be aware of the partisan agenda hidden behind this bill. There is a hidden objective.

I think it takes a certain kind of courage to oppose a bill that seems virtuous. That is what we are being told: If we do not vote in favour of the bill, it is because we are against it. I, of course, am 100% in favour of a woman's right to choose and all methods of contraception. I am a member of the Bloc Québécois. I speak on behalf of Quebec. I am not against the provinces' positions. I do not mind if they decide that the federal government can interfere in their jurisdictions. That is their choice, and I respect it. At the same time, that is not what I want for Quebec. That is why the Bloc Québécois proposed the following amendment in committee:

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

Our amendment concerns the ability to opt out with full compensation from the pharmacare program. It was not debated because we could not debate it in committee during clause-by-clause study of the bill. It was not rejected either. I would say that what happened is even worse: It was ruled inadmissible. I wish I could avoid talking about the reasons the committee chair ruled the amendment inadmissible, but I think it is important to go over them because this is just another clear demonstration of bad faith, in my opinion, and the federal government's disregard for the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec.

It was argued that the amendment required a royal recommendation, which is false. What we were told is that it will generate additional costs and that, since we are an opposition party, it requires a royal recommendation. I hate to say it, but that is absolutely false. The amendment did not require a royal recommendation, because the funds had already been committed by the government. The Bloc Québécois's amendment was therefore legitimate and admissible.

This is not the only time that government members have made arguments that do not hold water and that are merely a pretext to interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction. The government did the same thing in the case of Bill C-35, which deals with the child care program. As far as I am concerned, this is not only a sign of disrespect toward Quebec, it is basically an insult, because over the decades, Quebec has built a social safety net that is the envy of North America. We have pharmacare, as well as dental coverage for young people. We have free education and early childhood centres. We have made some huge social advances.

In this case, the federal government is digging in its heels and refusing to allow Quebec to opt out unconditionally with full compensation. As I see it, Ottawa is refusing to recognize Quebec's decades of leadership in this area. The same thing happened with child care centres and Bill C‑35. What is more, the federal government is doing all this without having jurisdiction over this area or having any expertise in care and social services. Quebec is being denied something we have every right to request by a government that lacks both expertise and jurisdiction. The government has no compunction about turning us down, but at the same time, it has to follow our example with a view to “continuing progress”, as they put it so eloquently. I have no problem with the federal government continuing progress, but I do not want this progress to come at Quebec's expense.

As I said before, Quebec already has a public pharmacare plan for part of the population that the government introduced nearly 30 years ago. I need to repeat this because I think some people have trouble hearing it. This is not the case with everyone, but in the House, it is true of nearly the majority. As far as Canada is concerned, it is trying to catch up. It is behind by 30 years, so now it is encroaching on our jurisdiction. It may be more. We also have a private plan offered by employers, to which workers contribute as well. No one in Quebec lacks pharmacare coverage. People need to stop spreading falsehoods.

The choice was made by Quebeckers. It was not Ottawa that made this choice, it was Quebec. Our plan is also paid for by Quebeckers. The federal government did not give a red cent for this plan. We know what is right for us. We do not need someone else to tell us. We are capable of taking care of ourselves. We do not need paternalistic Ottawa trying to manage a pharmacare plan in Quebec without expertise, without legitimacy and without experience.

I keep thinking that what the Bloc Québécois is asking from the federal government is simple and it makes sense. We are asking the federal government to take care of its own responsibilities, such as foreign affairs, defence and fisheries. It seems to me that the federal government has enough responsibilities. It has more than enough things to take care of.

Perhaps that is not sexy enough for the government. I should ask that question. Is that sexy enough for the government? Health and education are the two areas that affect people the most. Of course, health is a matter of major importance. We talk about the things we care about. If we are not alive, then nothing else matters, obviously. Health is important. These are the two budget items that are most important for Quebec.

The government knows that, for years now, its health transfers have been insufficient. They are shrinking down to nothing. It knows all that. If the government reduces the transfers, the burden will fall heavily on Quebec and the provinces. Who gets the blame when there is a shortage of care and services? Quebec and the provinces, obviously.

Jean Chrétien understood this well. He bragged to the G7 that all he had to do to balance the budget was reduce health transfers. He said that Canadians would look for someone to blame, but that they would not blame the federal government, because health is under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. They are the ones who would be cutting health care and education. For him, it was simple: Canadians would take it out on the provinces. The federal government would be able to achieve a balanced budget, and no one would hold anything against it. The provinces would pay the price, both literally and figuratively.

It always comes down to this, unfortunately, but as a separatist, I have no other choice. I am a separatist and I am pragmatic. It always comes down to the fiscal imbalance. The federal government collects more money than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, while the provinces and Quebec are not collecting enough to manage their own jurisdictions. They are short of money, which gives the federal government an opening to spend money on things under Quebec's and the provinces' jursidiction.

It is unbelievable. It is like the federal government is stealing from the provinces and Quebec. It is strangling them. If they meet certain conditions, it will back off and let them breathe again.

We would not thank anyone who is strangling us for stopping. We understand that interference is always done with a purpose. I mentioned this earlier, but it is still the same thing with the government and its minions.

The federal government swoops in like a saviour, slapping its flag on cheques, which it tosses around like confetti, and the cavalry of government members run around, trumpets blaring, trying to solve the problems it created itself. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like that image. It has definite educational value. However, although we may be laughing over it, it is a hard fact.

While the government is gaily running around, it has forgotten why it was elected. Perhaps it does not know. Perhaps it has forgotten. When a government has no vision, it may take a peek in the neighbour's yard, looking for direction.

Again, interfering in areas of provincial and Quebec jurisdiction has a purpose for them. In fact, the purpose is twofold in this case: one, to keep the government in power, and two, to prepare for the next election.

Until we gain independence, Quebeckers will have to fight to make sure this government respects us, respects our expertise and experience and gives us what is ours, meaning our money and, of course, control over our own jurisdictions. It will also have to respect the fact that we have our own pharmacare program.

Quebeckers are capable of discussing amongst ourselves, at home, and improving our pharmacare plan with our experts, based on our experience and our wishes. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebeckers what to do. We refuse to let our own tax money be used against us and at our expense.

One way to respect us is to vote down Bill C‑64. I may be a member of the Bloc Québécois, but I am not the only one who says so. The Quebec National Assembly has said it too. Christian Dubé, Quebec's health minister, pointed it out the day before the bill was introduced. We do not want this bill. We do not want the federal government to encroach on areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. I would remind the House that the National Assembly alone speaks for all Quebeckers.

In closing, I would therefore like to let the voices of Quebeckers be heard through the unanimous demands of the National Assembly for compensation to be paid to Quebec. That is what the Bloc Québécois has asked for, because the Bloc Québécois speaks on behalf of Quebeckers. The motion unanimously adopted by the National Assembly on June 14, 2019, reads as follows:

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.

That was back in 2019, so the Quebec government made its position clear quite some time ago. Today, I am still trying to be a voice for the National Assembly. I hoped that the federal government would respect Quebec's decision to refuse to join the federal plan, for example, in the motion put forward at the committee studying Bill C‑64. We respect the provinces that want to take part in the program set out in the bill, since coverage is rather inconsistent across Canada, but in Quebec, everyone is covered by a pharmacare program.

It is up to us to decide what we want to do next. It is not up to the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite fond of the member, but she just said that we need to listen to Quebeckers.

However, as the Bloc Québécois members should know, the largest coalition in Quebec's history, namely two million people under the umbrella of all the central labour unions, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Union des consommateurs and all the allied groups around the Fédération de la santé et des services sociaux, is calling for us to pass this bill, Bill C‑64.

The coalition members have been very critical of the current program in Quebec, including the fact that there are user fees for the drugs and many people are not covered. There are a lot of problems with the current situation. This broad coalition that the Bloc Québécois seems to refuse to listen to, says the following:

We are asking the federal government not to give in to the provinces and territories, which are asking for an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation.

The coalition members want to have the NDP's public, universal pharmacare program.

I have a very simple question. Why is the Bloc Québécois refusing to listen to Quebeckers?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised by my colleague's question. Perhaps others have answered it, but I will answer again.

I have listened to what the coalition of labour unions are saying. I understand that they want improvements to pharmacare in Quebec, but I will repeat that it is up to Quebeckers to do that. Yes, there can be a coalition. I understand that, but the fact remains that we have a National Assembly and that is the body that will make the decisions. It is the one in charge.

Sometimes it seems as though Canada may do something worthwhile when it gets involved, and we think that something is going to happen. However, what I would say to my colleague is that there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip when it comes to this bill. There is a really long way to go. There is a committee that is going to meet and hold consultations.

Quebec already has the experience and the expertise. Why not leave the task to a government that already knows how the system works? The federal government can tell Quebeckers that it wants to improve the pharmacare system, but as I said, we will discuss the matter among ourselves. However, the federal government can send us the money that it does not know how to spend because it is unable to take care of its own jurisdictions. We will improve the system.

Quebec has said that it will improve its pharmacare program. I think that the question is irrelevant. I am really pleased that there are ways to exert pressure to help us make gains, but the federal government needs to talk to the ones who are in charge, the Quebec National Assembly and Quebec, when it comes to improving our pharmacare program.

I do not need a paternalistic party telling Quebec what to do.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has clearly demonstrated, Bill C‑64 is much more the expression of an election agreement than of a bill. Why? That would be because a bill of this scope would have required prior coordination, at least with the nation that put a system in place 30 years ago.

Here in the House, the Quebec nation has been symbolically recognized on two occasions, but the moment that that has a legislative impact, it is out of the question. The National Assembly unanimously agreed that it wanted the right to opt out with full compensation to improve its plan. What is so hard to understand about that? My colleague clearly demonstrated that.

The worst part is that, in addition to the first phase of the bill, the government intends to implement something with no accountability. Has anyone ever seen a Canadian prime minister lose their seat in an election because of health care? It has never happened. Why? Because health care has never been their jurisdiction. In Quebec, however, governments have fallen over health care.

The government wants to meddle in the affairs of others, and with no political accountability, to boot. What does my colleague think about that?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is as though my colleague from Montcalm can read my mind. Obviously, I agree with him. It makes perfect sense.

I tried to bring up the election issue. I know that people may not always want to talk about it in the House, because everyone wants to be above the fray. However, at a certain point, we feel we need to point out some of the blind spots that others may not see. Sometimes we have to point out certain things that have been forgotten.

I mentioned the National Assembly motion. That was in 2019. It has been on the table for a long time, since June 2019. Let us think about it. That was before the election that the Prime Minister called because he wanted to win a majority. That is not what happened. We have been discussing this for a long time. We are just not seeing it. I am not saying that there is not some merit behind it but, as far as I am concerned, it is almost purely electoral. Once again, we refuse to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois appears not to be answering the question. A vast coalition of two million Quebeckers told the Bloc Québécois to vote in favour of Bill C-64. Its members are critical of Quebec's existing plan.

I am quoting them because it is important. I am referring to the Union des consommateurs, the Fédération interprofessionalle de la santé du Québec, the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, which, on behalf of two million Quebeckers, are calling on Bloc Québécois members, who are members for Quebec after all, to listen to them and take action by passing Bill C‑64, which the NDP introduced in Parliament.

Let us be clear. I am quoting a coalition that the Bloc Québécois seems unwilling to listen to.

We are asking the federal government not to give in to the provinces and territories that are asking for an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation.

This coalition is saying that we need to pass Bill C‑64 and we need these negotiations.

Why does the Bloc Québécois insist on blocking this bill and refuse to listen to Quebeckers who want it to pass?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is actually the voice of the Quebec National Assembly. My colleague repeated his question, and I will repeat the answer. The Quebec National Assembly is made up of people elected from all parties. This is a unanimous motion supported by all parties, including Québec Solidaire. Everyone agrees that the answer is no, that we want to opt out with full compensation.

I am an elected member of Parliament. I work for all of my constituents. I have a great deal of respect for the unions, and I would even say that I get along very well with them. I share the same values, namely solidarity and fairness. However, I am an elected official, so I represent the people. I do not just represent the interests of unions and other organizations.

It makes me a little uncomfortable to see my colleague siding with organizations, no matter which ones, rather than the people. I am sure the unions will agree with me that they should be the ones to decide for elected officials. Of course, pressure tactics are needed. Let us talk. Discussions are needed, yes, but that can also happen in Quebec.

I want to repeat the essential part my answer, so that it is clearly understood. I represent the Bloc Québécois and the people of Quebec through the National Assembly. That means everyone, and it is legitimate.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for me to split my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today is a very historic day. The New Democrats have been fighting for universal pharmacare for generations. I think about Tommy Douglas. When he led the charge to bring in universal health care in Canada, it was always envisioned that medication coverage should be included. We are the only country in the world that has universal health care that does not also include medication coverage. Every other country figured out that if it could cover people's visits to the doctor but they could not afford the medication they needed, they would end up getting more and more sick and end up in emergency rooms.

We know that the Liberals and Conservatives have opposed universal pharmacare whenever we have brought this idea up, but the New Democrats have not stopped. We know that the Liberals have promised pharmacare for 30 years and have broken that promise for 30 years, but we have not given up. We know that the Liberals and Conservatives have voted against this idea multiple times, but we have not given up. In committee, the Conservatives tried to block free birth control and free diabetes medication and devices, but we did not give up.

Today we are joined by a number of allies from across the country, labour activists and health coalition activists, who have been fighting for this. I know that the legislation is not perfect, but the legislation would create the foundation for pharmacare in our country. The legislation would create the foundation to move forward with universal pharmacare for all Canadians, starting with free birth control and diabetes medication and devices.

As I was saying, I am very honoured to speak today because it is a truly historic day. Thanks to our party's work, thanks to the unions' work, thanks to the coalition of health advocates' work, we are in the process of passing a bill that will lay the foundation for a universal pharmacare program in Canada.

The Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives are trying to block this bill, but we will not stop our work. We believe that Quebeckers deserve a program that covers all drug costs, starting with free access to contraceptives, as well as diabetes devices and medications. Thanks to the NDP and our allies, we are proud to say that this bill will pass today and that we will lay the foundation for a universal pharmacare program.

One dollar was the price that the Canadian inventors of insulin sold the patent for because they believed that it was more important to save lives than it was to make a profit. Fast forward to today, and pharmaceutical companies are making thousands of dollars off the backs of Canadians to buy life-saving insulin. While big pharma is ripping off Canadians, it looks like Conservatives and Liberals, historically, have been taking their side. Now, we have the Liberals on side, and it looks like Conservatives are backing up big pharma that does not want Canadians to have access to free medication.

Let us think about how much big pharma is ripping off Canadians just to have life-saving medication. I am concerned that Conservatives are not outraged that Canadians are having to spend money out-of-pocket to buy their medication. People are skipping meals so that they can afford their insulin. People are not taking medication and are becoming more and more sick. Everyone in this room should be angry about that. Pharmacare would save Canadians money and would save their lives.

A few years ago, I met a young boy with diabetes. He was around 10 years old. I met him with his father and he shared his story with me. He told me that he had type 1 diabetes, a lifelong disease. He knew that if he did not take care of himself or was irresponsible, he might die. Despite all of that, he was not worried about his disease, but about the cost of the drugs. He was worried about that because those drugs cost his parents a lot of money. In a country as rich as ours, that makes no sense.

While the Liberals and Conservatives focused on defending the interests of pharmaceutical companies, we in the NDP were fighting for this boy. We were fighting to help his parents have access to free diabetes drugs. What we in the NDP want is more money in people's pockets and less money in the coffers of big pharma.

When I think about what free diabetes medication and devices will mean, I think about Scott and Rosemary. Scott is Rosemary's dad. Scott and his partner found out that their daughter, Rosemary, had type 1 diabetes at a year old. She had to be airlifted from New Brunswick to Halifax, and in the hospital, she received life-saving treatment. I remember Scott sharing with me how worried he was about his daughter and how that meant they had to make sure she got the medication and the equipment she needed. Rosemary needs a continuous blood monitor and a pump to stay healthy, to stay alive, and it is a cost for the family. It is something Scott and his partner have to worry about. However, they are not just worried about the cost of that, but also worried about what it means for Rosemary. When she grows up, she will always have to worry about affording this medication. It is not going to go away; it is a lifelong illness. They are worried that she might not make choices to pursue her dreams but that she might instead make choices to find the right job that has the right coverage so that she can stay alive, and they do not want her to worry about that.

I asked Scott what it would mean for him and for his daughter Rosemary if we were able to make sure that she had free diabetes medication and devices. He said that it not only would mean lifting the pressure off him and his partner, as they would not have to worry about the cost, but also would mean that their daughter would have a brighter future. She would not have to worry about the cost of the medication and the devices she needs to stay alive. It would be life-changing for the family now and for the future. That is what we are fighting for.

I think about Linda whom I met in Port Moody—Coquitlam. On the other end of the spectrum, Linda has lived her whole life with type 1 diabetes. She is retired now, but she was diagnosed in her 20s. She has had type 1 diabetes for over 40 years. She was going through her costs, and at many times in her life, she did not have the best coverage, so it probably cost her a lot more, but she did not have those records. However, as a retired person with some coverage and with some provincial programs available to her, she is spending about $3,000 a year for the medication and the devices she needs. For her, over a lifetime, she figures that, at a minimum, and it is probably a lot more, she has spent over $120,000 just to stay alive.

Again, I think about people saying that this is not worth it. To Linda, it is worth it. To Rosemary, it is worth it. This would take away the pressure and the worry. It would mean that people would not be spending money out-of-pocket just to live.

I will talk about what free birth control would mean. Again, this is to Conservatives who say that this does not matter, but to Linda and to Rosemary it matters. When we talk about free birth control, while the Liberals have been in power, access to birth control or access to the right to choose has gone down. It has become more and more difficult, particularly in the Atlantic provinces where clinics have shut down.

We know that the right to choose is fundamental, but access to that right is just as fundamental, and we know that it has been more difficult. The Conservatives have been on a campaign to attack women's rights by bringing in motions that attack women's rights to choose, by supporting rallies that attack women's rights choose and by blocking free birth control. However, New Democrats have been very clear that we want to defend not only women's rights, but also access to those rights. It is fundamental to acknowledge that free birth control means reinforcing and strengthening the right to choose by giving more access to that right, which is fundamentally meaningful.

I will close by thanking everyone who made this possible. A particular thanks to my health critics, both the previous health critic, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, and the current health critic, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. I thank all the health coalition activists and all the labour activists who made this possible today.

It is a historic day for Canadians when we put the needs of Canadians ahead of big pharma. We say that Canadians deserve a health care system that truly covers them from head to toe, including universal pharmacare for all.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the NDP for his intervention today. More importantly, I thank him and our NDP colleagues for being adults in the room and for working with the government to bring forward meaningful legislation.

Although I get laughs from across the way, we see this quite a bit, where it is NDP members who are actually helping to make meaningful changes. They have come to this chamber with the objective of improving the lives of Canadians, and I think that needs to be applauded, despite the fact that, in theory, it is what we are all supposed to be doing here.

We have been hearing all day, and indeed, every time this debate has been going on, from Conservatives, that this would not have a big impact on Canadians, that it would not make a big difference because so many people are already covered and that what we are seeing through this legislation would not really do much for Canadians. I completely disagree with that. I would like to hear the leader of the NDP's thoughts on that.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although New Democrats always want to ensure that we are working toward improving the lives of people, we had to fight hard for this. This was not something that came on its own. We have to acknowledge that both Liberals and Conservatives initially voted against pharmacare when we first presented it. However, we were able to force the government to move forward now. In terms of the question, particularly the Conservatives' critique, I have given concrete stories about particular people who would directly benefit from this.

When we think about the potential of this bill's massive impact, for birth control, nine million women in our country would receive access to free birth control. My colleague worked at a women's clinic, and on the days they provided access to contraceptives, or birth control, there would be lineups for hours. People waited to get access to that free birth control medication and ended up leaving, often without getting access, because there was so much demand. We know that with the cost of living as high as it is, this would be a meaningful reduction in the cost of living. It would save money for women who need access to this medication, and it would also provide them with meaningful access to choice.

For the nearly four million people living with diabetes, this would fundamentally to save them money. People who have coverage often do not have complete coverage and still have to spend money out-of-pocket. Therefore, yes; this would save money and would save lives for millions of Canadians. It is meaningful, and I reject the Conservative claim that this would not be good for people.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House recognized Quebec as a nation. Through a unanimous vote in its National Assembly, Quebec is calling for a right to opt out with full compensation to improve its own program, which it has been administering for 30 years.

Does the leader of the NDP agree with the Quebec National Assembly?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the offer today is for all Canadians and all Quebeckers. We want to give them free contraceptives. That will really help women in Quebec. I know that this is going to be costly, but there is a great need for it.

It is the same thing for diabetes medication. We want to provide free drugs and medical devices. That will help people in Quebec. What we want to do is work together with the provinces and Quebec. We want people in Quebec to get the same coverage as people in the rest of Canada. For me, it is unacceptable to have free diabetes medication in Ontario but not in Quebec. I will not accept a situation where Nova Scotians get free medication but Quebeckers do not.

Here is what we want to do. We want to create a situation where everyone across the country has access to free medication. That includes Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member's riding of Burnaby South is always near and dear to his heart. I wanted to ask, through you, about the impact of this important historic legislation on people like Amber in Burnaby. Amber pays $1,000 a month for a diabetes medication.

How would this legislation help the member's constituents in Burnaby, like Amber?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on that great question from my colleague, it is important to point out that although the Conservatives and the pharmaceutical industry will mention there is coverage that people have, many people have coverage that requires a co-pay or that has a cap on how much is covered, and they have to spend money out-of-pocket. Having access to free diabetes medication and devices means it would be entirely free; it would cover that medication.

When we think about the cost, if someone does not take the medication they need, they end up having worse outcomes and end up in an emergency room, and that costs all of us. It is not only a saving for that person, not only a saving for Amber, but also an improvement to the overall health care system if people can stay healthy and can prevent illnesses.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that today is the fifth anniversary of the National Inquiry of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Two-Spirit and Gender-Diverse People. We need to acknowledge today that the government is failing to address the genocide against indigenous people, and that is failing both indigenous people and all Canadians. I certainly hope that the government prioritizes those calls for justice, knowing that to date we have only achieved two of the 231 calls for justice.

Today we are here to speak about Bill C-64. Today is, as my leader, the member for Burnaby South mentioned, historic. It is not just historic because of pharmacare. I do want give a shout-out to the Edmonton Oilers, who are now going to the Stanley Cup finals as of yesterday. It was a very big day.

I also want to start by saying how grateful I am to our leader. Our leader, the member for Burnaby South, has been a strong advocate for pharmacare for years. Instead of just being an advocate, he rolled up his sleeves, got to work, worked with the Liberals and he forced the Liberals, against all their historic votes, to put this framework in place.

I am so grateful to be a New Democrat today. I am so grateful to work with such a strong leader. I am also extraordinarily grateful to all the advocates who have done so much for decades to move this forward.

I want to start by talking a little about one of my constituents, Pat. He came into my office, and he had a challenge. We are really proud of health care in Canada. Canadians should be proud of our public health care system. However, when Pat came into my office and talked to my team and I, he told us that he had been able to see a doctor and he had been referred to a specialist. The specialist was able to give him treatment. The problem was that the medication for his treatment cost $400, and he did not have that $400. While our health care system is a point of pride, thanks to the health care system that Tommy Douglas developed, Pat was able to get part way there, but he was unable to get the treatment that would actually help him. It was never supposed to be this way.

When Tommy Douglas envisioned our health care system, pharmacare was always supposed to be part of that system. We know that Canada is the only country that has a medicare program that does not include pharmacare. It does not make any sense that we will treat Canadians to a certain point, but that we will not get them over the finish line without access to medication.

Today is an opportunity to make pharmacare a reality for millions of Canadians and to lay the groundwork to create a fully universal pharmacare system for all Canadians. It is truly historic.

Pat is not alone. A few months ago, I sat and listened to Albertans share their challenges and experiences at a pharmacare round table in Edmonton. One after another, Edmontonians stood up and they talked about how the lack of prescription coverage had affected their lives, how they had to juggle their bills and how they had to worry about groceries, utilities and rent, on top of their prescriptions. They had to make choices about which of those things they can afford.

As members of Parliament, sitting in this place, every one of us has a health care plan that covers our medication. However, for so many Canadians who do not have that access, this is game-changing. This is the difference between paying their rent and taking care of their health at the same time.

It was not just lower-income Canadians who were speaking out for pharmacare. Business leaders and health care professionals were all speaking about how important pharmacare was for them and why they wanted the government to move fast on this.

I spoke to a paramedic who shared his experience providing emergency care and transportation to hospital for people who could not afford their prescriptions, people who would be doing well if they had taken their medications appropriately, if they had not thought about cutting their pills in half, if they had not thought about taking a pill every second day. Those decisions that people are making are impacting their health, which in the long run have large costs on our health care system as well.

Doctors are so frustrated that their patients are not getting better because they cannot afford the treatment. Small business owners, despite paying more than minimum wage, can not possibly pay their employees enough in order to afford their medications.

A couple months ago, I sent out a mailer on pharmacare, as we all do in this place. I wanted to know what people in Edmonton thought about pharmacare. The response from constituents in Edmonton Strathcona was overwhelming. Ninety three per cent of people indicated that they were in favour of a universal pharmacare program and only 5% indicated that they were unsure or opposed. This mirrors national polls that put support for implementing a national pharmacare program to provide equal access to prescription drugs for everyone in Canada at 87%.

Last year, an Alberta-wide poll found that 74% of Albertans supported universal pharmacare. As the president of the polling company noted, the overwhelming support in Alberta for a federal program like this was surprising. He said, “Getting three-quarters of a population to agree with any piece of public policy these days, it is a bit astounding. It's very popular in Alberta.” He added that approval of the idea largely crossed all demographics and all regions of the province. Canadians understand and they know that we must care for one another. We must take care of each other, and universal pharmacare is a promise to take care of each other.

This legislation is not the end point; it is just the beginning but a very important beginning. We need the bill to create the mechanism for a full-fledged universal pharmacare system that covers all Canadians. No matter how young or how old, no matter where they live and no matter how they make their living, all Canadians have the right to prescription drug coverage, and this legislation is critical in getting it for them. The legislation is always going to be critical, but, right now, with coverage for contraceptives and diabetes medication, these two classes of drugs would impact millions of Canadians.

For example, nearly four million Canadians are affected with diabetes, a disease that impacts every aspect of their lives. In my province of Alberta, individuals with diabetes have had to fight the provincial government repeatedly to ensure they get the care they need and deserve. The bill would means that people living with diabetes may finally be able to put those battles aside and finally have hope for their future. By treating diabetes with devices and supplies on the same terms as the prescription medication, this legislation would save diabetics hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars each year.

With regard to contraceptives, we know the impact of contraception on women across the country and how vitally important this is. Manpreet Gill, the president of the Edmonton Zone Medical Staff Association and associate professor in the division of General Clinical Medicine at the University of Alberta, has written about the importance of contraceptive coverage to health and especially health care in Alberta. Dr. Gill states:

The cost of hormonal therapy (including for birth control) and intrauterine devices (IUDs) is a barrier for Albertan women to receive medically necessary care....

It also perpetuates unfairness in the system, resulting in unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. Universally available contraception would reduce the number of abortions, reduce economic stress on young and poor women and improve child and maternal health. It is estimated that 40 per cent of pregnancies in Canada are unplanned and it seems obvious that those who cannot afford contraception cannot afford to have a child.

The current patchwork system in Alberta is blatantly unfair. First, it is obvious that birth-control costs are primarily borne by women while men bear no such equivalent costs....

Secondly, while it is true that private plans cover birth control, it is worth considering two facts that this reveals. One, birth control reduces the costs to a private health plan, that’s why it is offered, and two, those that most [have that] need [are unable to] access...it.

As a woman, as a mother and as a mother of a daughter, I want my daughter, and every daughter in our country, every daughter in this world, to have access to the entire range of reproductive health care, including contraceptives. A system that provides access to some, those who can afford care, while denying access to others is not a system that I can support. Reproductive health care is health care, period.

Finally, I want to thank all the advocates across Canada who have worked so hard and so long to create this legislation. I want to thank Chris and the powerful advocates at Friends of Medicare in Alberta, who have worked not months, not years, but decades for this universal pharmacare. I want to thank the Canadian Labour Congress, the Alberta Federation of Labour and all the labour leaders, organizers and members across Canada who have put the needs of all Canadians, regardless of union membership, at the forefront of their campaigns for pharmacare.

We are here today because of the hard work of so many Canadians and so many leaders in our country. I continue to be delighted and honoured to work with all those leaders to ensure we get this over the finish line.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, be read the third time and passed.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to such an important piece of legislation, our national pharmacare bill, Bill C-64, which was introduced by the member for Ajax, the minister responsible for health care. In my opinion, this particular legislation is a long time coming. When health care, what Canadians have become accustomed to in Canada, was first introduced many decades ago, I think that there was always an expectation that Canada would follow suit with a pharmacare piece of legislation.

Indeed, it is my understanding that Canada is the only country in the world that has a health care plan that does not also have a pharmacare plan. I think that it is incredibly important that this piece of legislation is here. I have been listening to the debate over the last number of weeks regarding this particular bill, and I have found it quite interesting what I have heard in the House about it.

For starters, I want to say that it is a piece of legislation that I see as a starting point. It is a point at which we can start to implement a national pharmacare plan, in particular to help some of the most vulnerable Canadians get access to medications they need. I will address that point in more detail in a moment. More importantly, this is a starting point in the sense that we will start by having two major medications that Canadians use, medications for diabetes and contraceptives for individuals who require them.

I say that because I know that almost four million people in Canada are currently using medications for diabetes. This piece of legislation, even though it is only a starting point covering two specific medications, would certainly have an impact on so many people in our country. With the portion that is just for diabetes, that is nearly four million people on its own.

Bill C-64 would establish a framework, and that is the important thing. It is a framework toward a national universal pharmacare plan in Canada for certain prescription drugs and related products, including free coverage of contraception and diabetes medication, as I have already mentioned. The bill would also provide that the Canadian drug agency work toward the development of a national formula to develop a national bulk purchasing strategy and support the publication of a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription medications.

I think that the part regarding the bulk purchasing strategy is so incredibly important because this is where Canadians would see the benefit of having a national pharmacare plan. The idea that we can, as a whole country, purchase medications in bulk would give us that purchasing power that I think is needed to be able to make the purchases at a fair price, a price point that we as Canadians will ultimately be paying for through our taxes.

Finally, the last part of the bill is that, within 30 days of receiving royal assent, the minister would need to establish a committee of experts to make recommendations regarding the operation and financing of national universal single-payer pharmacare. The committee would be required to provide its report of recommendations to the minister no later than one year after the bill receives royal assent.

As I indicated earlier, when one talks about a program that is this big and this complex, it is important to have that proper oversight and to have a committee of experts making recommendations to the government on how to proceed. When we talk about the number of people who would be impacted by this, I find the conversation in the House to be really interesting, and this is something I alluded to a few moments ago, because it would be a benefit that everybody would be covered under the program. The reason why I say that is that I think it is very easy to make comments, such as I have heard from Conservatives in particular, that so many people are already covered. There are already people who are covered under their private plans. I think about 80% of people are covered in one way or another.

However, not everybody is covered in the exact same way. For starters, at least 20% of people are not covered under any plan, and these would be the most vulnerable because these are people who would have to go to the drug store to pay for their medication out of pocket. On the other end of the spectrum, there are a lot of people who are fully covered, and there are some really good plans out there. There are some really good employers. There are some really good institutions that provide plans to their employees and family members that are going to cover a lot, up to, in many cases, 100% of the cost of medication. Then, there is everything in between concerning what the coverage is and how much coverage there is. This is why it is so important that we talk about universal coverage. Sure, 80% of people might have some degree of coverage, but not everybody is covered the exact same way. I think it is extremely important that everybody has the same basic universal coverage.

When we look at the way we are treated when we go into hospitals, everybody is treated the exact same way. At least, it is supposed to be this way, and it could be argued that provinces are setting up things differently. If we go into a hospital emergency room, we will see triage. The hospital will determine the critical nature of a person's visit, how quickly a person needs to be dealt with, and everybody is treated the exact same way. Most importantly, when we are done and when we leave the hospital, we just go home. There is no one asking for a credit card or a billing address. We have the luxury of having a health care system that covers everybody, which does not ask people to pay when they are in, quite frankly, what would be their most vulnerable state.

I think one of the problems with my generation, and generations after mine and a few before, would be that the idea of having to pay for medical care seems almost foreign. It certainly does to me. I never think to myself, “Wow, I should go get this checked out, but what's it going to cost me to do that?” That is never something that enters my mind.

Members can just imagine that, if I were living in the United States, for example, there would be a lot of people who actually have to make that choice. They say, “Well, I should get checked out, but what is it going to cost me to do that?” This is one of those luxuries that we have with a single universal health care system such that we have here in Canada. It is not something that enters our mind because I think we believe, as a society, that there is a certain onus to take care of each other when it comes to our health care, which is what our health care system provides, notwithstanding the fact that we could get particular about what different provinces are attempting to do now. However, that is the reality of the situation.

When we talk about pharmacare and the drugs that we also need to be healthy, we have to ask ourselves why they are not treated the exact same way. What I see with the bill before us is an attempt to move in that direction.

There are two very important, or at least very popular, medications that a lot of Canadians use to start with. This comes from the same premise that, when somebody needs to take care of diabetes, for example, or somebody wants access to contraceptive medication, they should not have to filter into the equation of the decision whether they would have to pay for it, for starters, as 20% of the population would, or how much of it they would have to pay for. They should not have to ask, “Do I have to pay for a portion of it? Does my coverage only cover 60%, and so I have to pay 40%? Does that make it worthwhile to do this?” Canadians should not have to think that perhaps they could go against their doctor's advice and not get the medication because they think they will be fine.

These questions should not be asked by Canadians. There are a lot of seniors out there who rely on a lot of medications who should not have to say, “I have to make a decision between getting the medication I need or buying food.” They should not be making those choices, and they should not be saying that maybe they will only take half the dosage they have been prescribed because at least then they are still taking something but are not spending as much.

When we talk about health care and pharmacare, it is my position that it should be treated in the same way that we talk about health care and accessing care in terms of going to see a physician or going to the hospital. That is why I think the pharmacare bill is so important, because, as I said, it certainly does not cover every drug. It actually covers only two very important and widely used drugs, but it sets the framework for how things can evolve from here.

One of the things I find really interesting, when we are having this discussion about universality and the fact that it is just two pieces of very important medication, is what I have been hearing from Conservatives to this point. They are getting upset over the fact that it would not cover a lot and a lot of people would not be covered. They are basically saying that more should be invested. I have heard the member from Battle River—Crowfoot talking about how we are not doing enough. Nonetheless, they will still vote against the bill.

I cannot help but wonder why they are saying we need to do more, but then are against the idea fundamentally. I do not know whether Conservatives are doing what we have seen them do a number of times before, which is to start by talking about a piece of legislation and trying to critique it all day long, only to then vote in favour of it when the time comes, or whether they have a plan for universal pharmacare that is even more ambitious than this one. I find myself somewhere in between, trying to figure out what they are really trying to get at with this.

At the end of the day, we know that this is something that would help Canadians. We know, and I strongly believe, that the concept of having a universal pharmacare system, in the long run to cover many more drugs, is certainly my goal. That would be to the great benefit of all Canadians.

The legislation is a huge step forward in delivering better health care to Canadians. As I said, it lays out the plan for universal single-payer coverage for contraception and for diabetes medication. This would mean nine million women and gender-diverse Canadians all across the country could get access to the contraception and reproductive autonomy that they deserve.

Notwithstanding the fact that lately we have heard some Conservatives start to talk and to reopen discussions about reproductive autonomy from decades ago, the reality is that we believe that when somebody makes choices about what to do with their body, in particular when it comes to reproductive aspects, they should be able to make those choices. A woman should be able to make those choices. In my opinion, the government should be there to support them in making whatever choice they think is the best for them as an individual.

Although the piece of legislation before us, as I previously said, would not cover every medication, or a lot more medication as I would ultimately like to see, it certainly would be a starting point, a place to begin. It would be a place to lay the groundwork. It would be a place to engage the experts to provide feedback as to how we could move forward. It would allow us to start somewhere significant, given the number of Canadians it would affect, and then from there, to grow.

I am really looking forward to the day when we can say that our pharmacare and the medications that Canadians depend on so much will be treated in the exact same manner that we see in the rest of our health care system, in particular when we go to visit a doctor or we have to go to an emergency room, as I described earlier.

I really hope Conservatives vote in favour of this at the end of the day, despite some of what I have been hearing. This is a great opportunity to show the country that the bill is not something we will make political and that it is something that truly would benefit many Canadians. It would help the 20% or so of people who might not have some degree of coverage. It would equalize the very well-off people with some of the most vulnerable in our communities by saying it does not matter what one's socio-economic status is and it does not matter what one's income level is. We respect the fact that all Canadians should have access to the medications they need so badly, and that their doctors, through our health care system, could provide it to them.

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

Madam Speaker, the place to start with pharmacare should have been with the people who have no money to cover medication, and that is in the catastrophic category of people who need medication but cannot afford it because it is not worth a drug company's while to mass-manufacture the drug. That being said, we have experienced shortages in medication, particularly for diabetics, in the not-so-distant past.

Given that there are so many people with diabetes and that it would be difficult to triage people on a one-on-one basis, how would the government decide who gets the medication and who does not, in the instance of a drug shortage? In other words, how would the government decide who lives and who dies?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the first part of her question, the member should know that there is already a program in place that specifically deals with rare diseases and the drugs associated with them. That angle of it is actually already covered.

With respect to her question about shortages, this is exactly why a national program like this, where we could purchase in bulk, makes sense. Companies that supply and that bid on bulk sales would know exactly what the demands would be based on what the government is asking for. They would also be helped to be able to produce the devices and drugs.

It does not take somebody who has been in business a long time to understand that when they have a customer, such as a government that asks for a certain product, or they get into a contract to manufacture a certain product, they will have to start delivering that product. I think we would steer away from the shortage problems.

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

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member said that it was important to have the expertise required and a committee of experts to analyze things. We do, in fact, have expertise in this area, and it is in Quebec.

My question is simple. What is the problem with the decentralization of funds to Quebec, which could work fully in its own jurisdiction, in an area where it already has a system in place?

It is important to remember that Quebec is ahead of Canada in these areas. That is the case in almost every social area. All of the parties recognize that. Why crush this system with something new when we already have a system that works and that could be improved upon? We have the same objectives and we agree on the basic premise. Why then does the federal government not want to transfer the amounts with no strings attached?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member asked what the problem with it is. The problem is that I want to learn from that expertise. He is saying that Quebec already knows everything so Quebec should just be left alone. I am saying that the whole point in bringing the experts together is to learn. I want the experts in Ontario to learn from the experts in Quebec, because I think that, yes, Quebec is very successful at a lot of things. If the member is correct in everything he is saying, the rest of Canada has a lot to learn. I am looking forward to that learning opportunity with the incredible experts who obviously exist in Quebec already, as per what the member just said.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands in his speech observed a unique Conservative critique that we have heard emerge. The Conservatives criticize policies as not being good enough, and then they vote against them entirely. If pharmacare is not perfect, the answer, in their minds, is no pharmacare whatsoever. If dental care excludes some Canadians, instead of amending or improving it, the answer is no dental care unless someone has private coverage. If Canada ranks 62nd out of 67 countries on climate change, then the answer is somehow to have no climate plan.

What does the member make of this unique logic?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that when I said that, the message got across. I was not exactly sure how to phrase it, but it is exactly what the member is saying. That is what we are seeing. The member for Battle River—Crowfoot said, in his 20-minute speech, that the system would not be a good one because it would not be for these people or those people, and that therefore we need no system.

Conservatives do the same thing on just about every issue. I do not know why they are doing this. I wanted to ask the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, if he does not like the proposed pharmacare plan, to tell us about his pharmacare plan, because we know they do not have one.

I just find it incredibly rich to continually hear Conservatives get up to talk down programs, almost implying that they would bring along an even better program. However, I think there is nobody in this room, and no Canadian who looks at this stuff objectively, who would think that Conservatives would be interested in a pharmacare plan, because we know they would not be.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the fact that the program would be addressing two main elements, contraceptives and diabetes. I am thinking from the affordability angle and would like to hear his comments on that. We know when people are all of a sudden confronted with a huge expense or an unexpected, long-term expense what that can do to their budget. I would like to hear him comment on how the pharmacare program would help.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the affordability aspect of it, I think, is really important. I do not think it really matters what one's economic background or economic status is, but if any Canadian were to go into a hospital and receive a bill afterward, any of us would be taken aback by that just because of the concept. I have friends who live in the United States. One gave birth recently and received a bill for $26,000. It is absolutely insane.

The same logic has to apply to the medications we need. It is not even just about helping people with the costs; it is also about the investment. If we help people take care of themselves now, we are not going to have to pay as much when they end up in the hospital because they were not able to afford the medications they were prescribed.

What the bill is really about, and what I tried to emphasize in my speech, is that there are varying levels of affordability right now. Some people, 20% or so, have absolutely no coverage. Some people have the platinum level of coverage where they do not have to pay anything. Then there is everybody else in between. Some people pay 60%, and some people pay 40%, 20%,10% or whatever it is depending on who is covering them. At the end of the day, in my opinion, the coverage needs to be universal, just like the coverage is universal when it comes to receiving health care from a physician or in a hospital.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, normally we see a lot of fireworks back and forth from the member to our side, and we did not see that in this speech, which is appreciated.

I have a straightforward question. I think it was brought up by my colleague from the Bloc. Health care is provincial jurisdiction. The provinces are mostly covering a lot of things for low-income people or those who are not covered. Alberta does the same for the items that are in the bill for birth control and diabetes.

The question is this: Because the provinces are already doing that, why not just fund the provinces to allow them to expand their programs rather than creating a duplicate process federally?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, on the member's comment, I apologize if I was not on my game and did not give him the fiery speech he was expecting, I will work on that for next time.

All I will say is that is a great suggestion. I am sure there is a really good answer to it and that committee could get down to it. I will say to the member that it is the first real question I have heard from that side that I have actually had to reflect on. I do not mind saying that maybe he has a good point. Let us have a debate on that rather than having a debate on the false narratives that are going on.

I know the members of the Bloc would say that they asked me the same thing, but the point is this: I believe that it is just like health care as it relates to physician care or hospital care, which is something that is established by the federal government and the actual implementation is done by the provinces. Can universal pharmacare get to that place and what the member is suggesting? Yes, it might be the case that one day that is where we can get to, but the standard has to be the same across the entire country. That is the really important thing and what I fear might be lacking if we allowed what he suggested to happen.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Saskatoon West, or as we fondly know him, the member from Saskatoon West Edmonton Mall.

I rise on Bill C-64, which is officially called an act respecting pharmacare. I have two other names for it. One is the proper Liberal name of the bill, which is “fake news to satisfy the gullible NDP caucus act,” and then the longer title is the NDP “I hope no one notices we said we would force an election unless we got a comprehensive and entirely public pharmacare program but sold out for little act.” I am being a bit sarcastic here, but this is the truth.

The government has repeatedly stood in the House and said it is extensive pharmacare, but it is not. It is two items. The NDP members have constantly stood up with their colleagues across the way in the senior partnership, or the radical wing of the NDP, and said it is comprehensive pharmacare that is single pay. Despite what they would have one believe, it would just cover two items.

It does potentially cover diabetes drugs and birth control, but we do not know the details. What it would not do is cover the chronic diseases Canadians are suffering from most. The top ones are hypertension, osteoarthritis, mood and anxiety disorders, osteoporosis, asthma, obstructive pulmonary disease, ischemic heart disease, cancer, dementia and, rounding out the top list, diabetes. Only one item would be covered out of the major chronic issues that are diseases or afflictions hurting Canadians. Where is the coverage for those? It is nowhere to be found, which is why the government and other people in the House should not be calling it a pharmacare act.

The Liberals can name it a potential pharmacare act down the road, but they should not be misleading Canadians into believing that this is a pharmacare act. I asked where the coverage was for hypertension. Eight million Canadians suffer from this. Four million Canadians have osteoarthritis, two million have osteoporosis, and four million are suffering from asthma. How many of them would be covered by this so-called pharmacare act? The answer is zero. Two million Canadians are suffering from obstructive pulmonary disease. Not one would be covered. On ischemic heart disease, 2.4 million Canadians are suffering from this. Not one would be covered under this plan. Forty per cent of Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, with 250,000 new cases every year. Not one would be covered under this so-called pharmacare act. For dementia, 750,000 people are affected, and not one would be covered. Where is the coverage?

I want to get back to my admittedly snarky comments about the NDP. I want to quote the National Post, which reads, “NDP members drew a line in the sand by passing an emergency resolution at their policy convention in Hamilton...that says the party should withdraw its support if the Liberals do not commit to ‘a universal, comprehensive and entirely public pharmacare program.’”

If one looks up the word “comprehensive”, the definition is, “complete, including all or nearly all aspects of something”. Is this all or nearly all aspects of pharmaceuticals? No, of course it is not. Anne McGrath, the New Democratic Party's national director, “said getting a bill that has teeth will be her party's biggest priority as parliamentarians return to the House of Commons”.

Canada has about 9,000 approved pharmaceutical drugs. The bill would cover maybe 200, so where are the other 8,800? Anne McGrath further stated, “Weak legislation is not going to be acceptable to New Democrats”. Maybe 200 for diabetes and birth control out of 9,000 seems to be acceptable.

She said, “It has to be strong. It has to have teeth. And I feel like that resolution gave [the NDP leader] and the caucus a lot of bargaining power. It gives them a lot of strength.” I wonder when my colleagues in the NDP are going to be withdrawing their support. They probably will not.

One issue I brought up in an earlier question is that a large majority of Canadians are covered, but some are slipping through the cracks. Some are not covered, and some are only partially covered, but they are covered by the province. Alberta, for example, covers most of the items brought up. Essentially, B.C., Quebec and Ontario do as well. Pretty much every province, except one or two in Atlantic Canada, covers diabetes or birth control for low-income Canadians. However, they are not covering the other items of importance, such as hypertension and some of the others.

The initial phase of this is going to cost about a billion and a half dollars. That money could be better used, by either giving it to the provinces for rounding out the services or, better yet, focusing on Canadians afflicted with rare diseases. A couple of families came to my office. Their young children were suffering from SMA, spinal muscular atrophy. It is a horrible disease. Generally, it is a death sentence by the time the child is two years of age. At about the time the children of these two families in Edmonton were diagnosed, a new drug had come out; it is called Spinraza. I have to give points to the pharmaceutical companies for how they come up with these names. Spinraza does not cure the disease, but it extends life to about 18 years old. Children would not have a great quality of life, but they could live to their late teens.

When Spinraza came on the market, Rachel Notley's NDP was in power in Alberta. We went to the local MLAs in the NDP to see if we could speed up coverage for the drug in Alberta; however, the NDP refused to look at this. The same NDP that says it is a line in the sand that it will force an election over refused to help this family. When the provincial United Conservatives were elected, Tyler Shandro was the health minister. He was much maligned, and I am sure a lot of it was probably deserved. However, he managed to get Spinraza approved for the family within two weeks. It is a very expensive drug.

Along came a better drug called Zolgensma. I truly believe it is a miracle drug. With Spinraza, children would spend about a month a year in intensive care, getting spinal taps and everything, for their treatment. Instead of that, Zolgensma is one shot in the arm. It seeks out the bad gene and copy-pastes the good gene over, basically stopping the disease in its track and giving the children a chance at a strong life. It would be about $45 million a year to treat everyone afflicted with this, everyone born every year in Canada. This is where the government should spend this money. It should focus on that.

It should not be spending money to replace programs that already exist. About 60% of Canadians have a program delivered through work. Instead of subsidizing that 60%, it should look after people like this in need. These two families had to fundraise for this drug. Ryan Reynolds, who was in Deadpool, helped fundraise for these two families. Luckily enough, a corporate benefactor came through and provided for everyone in Canada. This is an example where that billion and a half dollars could be better spent.

Another couple in my riding had a child suffering from PKU, which is a rare inherited disorder. It causes a buildup in amino acid in the body and prevents it from metabolizing protein. Children cannot have protein. It costs $5,000 a month out-of-pocket. The government should look after covering this.

Twenty-seven million Canadians already have coverage through work. This Liberal single-payer plan is going to subsidize either the companies that are already paying for this or big pharma. It is funny that big pharma just got an extra tax for too much profit through the Liberal government, a temporary Canada recovery dividend to attack big pharma, which it is now going to subsidize. It could also subsidize companies directly, including Loblaws. At the same time as it is demonizing Loblaws in the House, it will end up subsidizing it. Therefore, I do not support the act as it is. There are better ways to do it than the way the Liberals and NDP are doing it.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member across the way, and the Conservative Party's approach in general, in terms of dealing with the issue of pharmacare. The member seems to be saying that we have all these medications that are out there and asking why we are limiting pharmacare to two. The short answer is that this is a very significant first step, and there is a substantial cost to it. The bill would ensure that we do not get a varying patchwork wherein the province in which one happens to live determines what kind of a fee one would actually be paying. We have literally 100-plus different types of plans out there, including public and private; I would suggest there might even be some non-profit stuff out there.

Does the member not recognize the true value of moving forward on such an important issue as pharmacare and that one way he can do so is by supporting the legislation?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that a huge number of Canadians, the majority, are already covered by plans, either through the government or through their work. The government should be looking for and helping those who are slipping through the cracks or those who have no coverage or nearly no coverage. It should not be looking at subsidizing big corporations, so they do not have to provide it to their employees, or subsidizing big pharma for these things. It should look after those slipping through the cracks or those who have no coverage at all.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up with my colleague about the question that I asked earlier and he repeated. It was about health transfers to the provinces and Quebec, which has the expertise in this area. I would like him to tell me how he interpreted the answer the member gave earlier, when he told me that Quebec has the expertise and that Canada wants to learn from that expertise. Meanwhile, the federal government wants to crush that system with a new pan-Canadian system they claim will have all the facts.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from the Bloc.

The provinces are responsible for health care. They are mostly providing that already. I look at Alberta: $2,400 for patients with diabetes currently regularly using insulin; $320 for diabetic medications for patients at high risk of hypoglycemia; $160 for medications for patients at low risk of hypoglycemia; and monies for pumps.

The provinces are, by and large, already filling a lot of those gaps. The government, if it wishes to spend the money, should deliver the money to the provinces that are delivering the services so they can fill those last few gaps, rather than creating a whole new level of bureaucracy and potential problems. The government cannot pay its employees. It has messed up the Canada Life switch for public service pharmaceuticals. Somehow, I do not think the government is going to be able to cover 40 million Canadians with a new plan out of the blue.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative member has been parroting talking points from the big pharmaceutical companies, and while he talks about the majority of Canadians already having coverage, people with diabetes who are covered are still spending thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for essential medication. Why does he not think those people deserve support?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is funny; I have not once parroted big pharma talking points. I did parrot the NDP, though, with a comment that it would force an election unless a comprehensive plan was delivered. Why is the member still propping up a government that promised a comprehensive plan but is just delivering two items?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, Liberals like to wrap themselves in the Canadian flag and proclaim themselves the great deliverers of health care in our country. It gets better. Allow me to read from former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin's 2004 election platform, which he infamously called a “fix for a generation”: “The priorities of a Liberal government begin with publicly funded, universally available health care. There is simply no other issue of such vital significance to Canadians. Liberals are proud of their founding role in making medicare a national priority.”

That sounded pretty good. It continues on, stating, “The objective of a Liberal government will be to agree with provinces and territories on a national pharmaceuticals strategy by 2006.” I would say that was a fail. That was former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin's 2004 election platform: a “fix for a generation”. Needless to say, national pharmacare did not happen in 2006. In fact, it is a full 20 years, a full generation, later, and we have a health care system that has fallen apart under the current NDP-Liberal government in Ottawa. Having broken our publicly accessible universal primary care system, we now have a Liberal Prime Minister who is setting his eyes on taking a wrecking ball to yet another part of our health care system. Why? In this backward town we call Ottawa, where common sense goes to die, Liberal logic says that if it is not broken, they need to break it.

What are the NDP-Liberals breaking today? It is the systematic dismantling of Canadians' access to their prescription drugs and treatments that are vital to their health. Just like 20 years ago, when that former Liberal prime minister brought disaster after disaster to primary health care, breaking it for a generation, if we follow our current NDP-Liberal Prime Minister down this path, our prescription drug system will forever be broken for generations to come. Rather than calling this a “fix for a generation”, I would say the fix is in.

It is against this backdrop of our broken primary health care system that Canadians need to take a good, hard look at this legislation. Bill C-64, the so-called pharmacare bill in front of us today, is not what the NDP or the Liberals are advertising. It is neither the implementation of universal prescription drug coverage, nor will it improve the options for the two items it promises to cover: contraception and diabetes medications. Instead, it goes out of its way to destroy Canadians' already pre-existing insurance coverage, provincial drug plans and freedom of choice in medication when pursuing treatments.

First, let us talk about federal-provincial relations. It is interventionist NDP-Liberal governments that use their control over the purse strings to force provinces into impossible decisions on patient care. Every time a premier tries to improve health care in their jurisdiction, the Liberal Prime Minister of the day will threaten to cut off health care funding to the province. Let us say a province wants to establish a few clinics offering MRIs outside of a hospital. To the Liberals, this is a mortal sin, and it cannot be allowed.

Earlier this year, the federal Liberal Minister of Health fined my home province of Saskatchewan $1 million for allowing MRI clinics to operate in 2021. This was an innovative idea that increased the number of MRIs performed at a lower cost. It was brilliant, but not so fast. The NDP-Liberal government saw that as a mortal threat and fined the province. As these clinics are still functioning because they are common sense, we can expect the fines to continue. How ridiculous is that? The answer is as simple as it is sad. They actually do not want the system to get better. They do not want better outcomes for people. The NDP and the Liberals learned long ago that as long as the health care system is broken, they can campaign in elections as the great protectors and saviours of the system. Canadians are not going to fall for that again. Remember, this whole thing depends on the federal government convincing the provinces to go along with this scheme, something we already know the Liberals are not good at doing.

Is this bill not doing something good? There is a second important thing to understand. This so-called pharmacare legislation will not bring universal prescription drug coverage to Canadians. Subsection 8(2) of the legislation, Bill C-64, under the heading “Discussions” says:

The Minister must...initiate discussions...with the aim of continuing to work toward the implementation of national universal pharmacare.

Let us break that down. What does the legislation require the minister to do? He must initiate discussions. That is fair enough. What do those discussions do? They have the aim of continuing to work towards a goal. Is that the big reveal? The minister is required to talk to some people to work towards an ideal. That sounds like every scam artist running a Ponzi scheme. Schmooze as many people as possible, and sell them on an idea that is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. This legislation is literally that: smoke and mirrors, conning Canadians into thinking there is a pot of prescription drug gold at the end of the rainbow.

It is not prescription drug gold at the end of this legislation. In fact, every single Canadian would be just that much poorer if and when this gets implemented because it is a direct attack on Canadians' private health insurance and drug coverage. Did members know that, according to The Globe and Mail, there are 102 government drug programs operating today, along with 113,000 private insurance programs? Statistics Canada reports that 79% of Canadians currently have health insurance that includes drug coverage.

The completely independent Parliamentary Budget Officer analyzed how much it would cost Canadian taxpayers if universal pharmacare were implemented. Their analysis is that pharmacare would cost about $40 billion every year. More importantly, that would be about $13 billion more than is being spent today. Let us keep in mind that pharmacare would replace existing public and private drug plans. Generally, private health care plans have better coverage than public ones. That would leave most people worse off. Therefore, overnight, four out of five Canadians would lose the prescription drug coverage they have through their employer, union, school, spouse, parent or provincial government plan.

The federal government is paying for it, which means we are paying for it through increased taxes. Either way we look at this, it would result in a multi-billion dollar spending increase paid for by us. Those who would really benefit from this are private companies who provide insurance to their employees because today the companies are paying for private drug insurance. Once this program kicks in, they could cancel those programs because the government would be paying for it. That would save those companies significant dollars. Essentially, it would be a transfer of dollars from the federal government directly to those companies, which is paid for by us.

Of course, the NDP-Liberals always love increasing taxes on unsuspecting Canadians. The other thing they love doing is limiting our choices to fit their narrow world view. There are two classes of drugs that the NDP-Liberals choose to cover in this so-called pharmacare bill: contraception and diabetes medications.

Let us talk about diabetes. Most people know that insulin is a shot given to diabetics to control their blood sugar levels, as needed. However, do people know that metformin is a prescription diabetes pill that is taken once or twice daily to help the body control its blood sugar properly, reducing the need for insulin? Do people know that metformin is prescribed commonly as a treatment for people before they have diabetes? With a daily treatment of metformin, that person may never develop diabetes, and that daily metformin is a dirt-cheap alternative to very expensive insulin. It keeps pre-diabetics from developing the disease, and it costs pennies, compared to insulin. Metformin is not covered.

What about Ozempic? We have all heard of Ozempic as the wonder weight-loss drug, but that is simply a side effect of being a diabetes drug that acts on the pancreas to control blood sugar. We also know that the best way to avoid type 2 diabetes is to be a healthy weight and to not be obese. Ozempic does that, but Ozempic is among the most expensive drugs on the market at about $75 a dose. Ozempic and metformin are used to prevent the disease of diabetes. Does that mean the NDP-Liberals are purposely going to deny treatment to those folks to prevent them from developing diabetes and are going to wait until they get the full-blown disease? How is that fair? Should that not be a decision for the patient and the doctor, and not for some bureaucrat in Ottawa?

Innovative Medicines did a comparison of the access of drugs covered by private insurance versus those in public plans. The results are as shocking as they are sad. In Canada, private insurance covers twice as many drugs as provincial plans do. The bottom line is that this bill, Bill C-64, proposes to take away people's private drug plan. That is what single-payer means. The result is that private companies and anyone else currently providing drug coverage in a benefit plan would cancel those plans and would force Canadians onto the government plan. Canadians would be stuck with a slimmed-down plan and would be forced to pay out-of-pocket for the rest.

After nine years, it is clear that this NDP-Liberal government simply is not worth the cost to Canadians' health. It has broken our primary health care system, and now with this so-called pharmacare legislation, it is setting out to break prescription drug coverage for 80% of Canadians who already have private insurance.

Conservatives will not stand idly by while the NDP-Liberals systematically break our country. If we form government, we would undertake the task to fix the immense damage this costly coalition has done. We would axe the tax. We would build the homes. We would fix the budget, and we would stop the crime. Let us bring it home.

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

Madam Speaker, it is concerning now. The Conservatives are trying to maybe do a bit of a backtrack, and they are saying that it is just not good enough. Depending on the depth of the speech, we will find that the Conservatives do not support public involvement at the national level, period. End of story. Let us realize that there are over 3.5 million people with diabetes. About 25% of them have reported that they are not taking all the medications they could or should be taking and that cost is a barrier. There are people with diabetes who will go blind and those who will have amputations. There are all sorts of issues. Why does the Conservative Party not support Canadians' receiving this particular benefit?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, we need to be very clear on what we are talking about here, which is a system that is proposing to blow up the existing network of private and public health care, pharmacare programs, of which 80% of Canadians already have coverage, at the expense of putting in a generic plan that everybody would have. As I said in my speech, many people would actually lose coverage. It would reduce what they could get.

Certainly, there are people who are not covered, and I would agree that maybe there should be something to deal with those people. However, we should not have a single system that comes in and blows up everything to put in a universal, single-payer program. That makes no sense, and that is something I will not support.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have already talked about the fact that Quebec has its own pharmacare plan and that the government refuses to include—

Madam Speaker, am I disturbing my colleagues who are talking amongst themselves? May I ask my question?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order.

I would ask members to take their conversations outside. I am sure that hon. members want to listen to the question.

The hon. member for Beauport-Limoilou.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As I was saying, Quebec has a pharmacare program that may not be perfect, but it is already in place and public servants are managing it.

My question is this. Is it not completely illogical to force a province that already has everything it needs to take care of such a system to pay taxes so that the Canadian government can create other positions and duplicate services already offered to Quebeckers, without bringing them any more benefits?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that great question, and it gets to the core issue, too, of the incompetence of the Liberal government in dealing with provincial-federal relations. We already know that provinces, like the Province of Quebec and others, have said that they are not going to sign onto this program because they have their own programs or they have different ideas. That is also part of the problem. We are going to end up with a patchwork system across the country, as has been mentioned before.

I have no confidence that the current government can actually pull off the negotiations with different provinces to put in a program like this, let alone the fact that it is not a program worth putting in.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives seem to fight against anything for women, whether it is menstrual hygiene products or, now, free contraception. This includes some of their backbenchers who are fighting against the right to access safe trauma-informed abortion care.

Why are the Conservatives so anti-feminist and anti-women?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member questions of my own. The NDP members wanted a complete pharmacare program. This is nowhere near that.

How can the NDP members support this? How can they support the government? How can they keep propping up the incompetent Liberal government?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, Mental Health and Addictions; and the hon. member for Victoria, Climate Change.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House. Happy Monday. I hope that we and our respective families are doing well. Before I begin, I wish to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre this evening.

I am happy to speak today regarding Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare. It is another step for our government to make life more affordable for Canadians and provide the services that they need at this point in our term, and something that I am very proud of as a member of Parliament.

Before I get into my formal remarks, this weekend I was reminded of the work we are doing in helping Canadians, including the wonderful residents that I have the privilege of representing in Vaughan—Woodbridge. Close to my constituency office is one of the regional roads in the city of Vaughan in York Region, Weston Road. Along Weston Road, there are three signs that are placed up by our local dentists, all accepting the Canadian dental care program. Much like what is contained in the contents of Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, here we have another foundational piece that is assisting Canadians in my riding and across the country. We know that over two million seniors have been approved for the dental care plan, and that over 120,000 have actually visited dentists. I have had many conversations with the seniors in my riding over the weekend who have used the plan and are very happy about it.

Along that vein, we are introducing a bill on pharmacare that will again help Canadians, 3.7 million of them, who have diabetes. We know that diabetes costs our health care system north of $30 billion a year. There are real savings in doing what we are doing and also taking preventative steps and providing contraceptives for Canadians.

This bill sets out the principles that will guide our government's efforts to improve the accessibility and affordability of prescription medicines and support their appropriate use. It also underscores the importance of working together with provinces and territories to make national pharmacare a reality for Canadians. We can all agree that Canadians should have access to the right medicines at an affordable price regardless of where they live.

That is what Bill C-64 does. It represents the first phase toward a national pharmacare, starting with the provision of universal single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications. This legislation is an important step forward to improve health equity, affordability and outcomes and has the potential of long-term savings to the health care system.

In budget 2024, we announced $1.5 billion over five years to support the launch of national pharmacare and coverage for contraception and diabetes medications. I will highlight how important this is to Canadians and, specifically, how important access to contraceptives is to almost nine million women—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Some individuals are having conversations, and I think they seem to forget that they are in the House of Commons right now. Their voices are starting to rise a little bit. I would ask them to take their conversations out for now, because I am sure that others want to hear the speech so that they can ask questions.

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was just saying how important contraceptives are to nearly nine million women in this beautiful country we live in, nearly one-quarter of the Canadian population.

Contraception, also known as birth control, is used to prevent pregnancy, whether it is required for family planning, medical treatment or overall reproductive health. Improved access to contraception improves equality, reduces the risk of unintended pregnancies and improves reproductive rights.

The single most important barrier to accessing contraception in Canada is cost. For example, the typical cost for select contraceptives for an uninsured Canadian woman is up to $25 per unit, or $300 per year, for oral birth control pills, and up to $500 per unit for a hormonal IUD, which is effective for five years.

Some populations are disproportionately affected by the lack of coverage. Women, people with low incomes and young people, all of whom are more likely to work in part-time or contract positions, often lack access to private coverage. One study found that women from lower-income households are more likely to use less effective contraceptive methods or no contraceptive method at all. Although most drug plans list a range of contraceptive products, unfortunately only a fraction of Canadians are eligible for prescription birth control at low or no cost through a public drug plan.

Bill C-64 would ensure that Canadians have access to a comprehensive suite of contraceptive drugs and devices, because improved access to contraception improves health equality. This means that every woman would have the ability to choose a contraceptive that is best for her, regardless of her ability to pay. This would contribute to her right to have bodily autonomy, which is what this government fully and fundamentally supports.

In addition, ensuring access to a comprehensive suite of contraceptive drugs and devices at no cost to the patient can lead to savings for the health care system. British Columbia implemented this policy at the provincial level last April, and studies from the University of British Columbia suggest that no-cost contraception has the potential to save the B.C. health care system approximately $27 million per year. In the first eight months of that policy being in place, more than 188,000 women have received free contraceptives.

Sexual and reproductive health is a priority for this government. This is reflected in Bill C-64 but, as I have mentioned, it also goes beyond that to other significant federal initiatives. As part of budget 2021 and budget 2023, the Government of Canada has continued to demonstrate its commitment to improving access to sexual and reproductive health care support, information and services for Canadians who face the greatest barriers to access; and to generating knowledge about sexual and reproductive health for health care providers.

Since 2021, the sexual and reproductive health fund has committed $36.1 million to community organizations to help make access to abortion, gender-affirming care and other sexual and reproductive health care information and services more accessible for underserved populations. An additional $16.7 million has been provided to the Province of Quebec.

Budget 2023 renewed the sexual and reproductive health fund until 2026-27. This initiative has funded 21 projects and is currently funding 11. The sexual and reproductive health fund is providing $5.1 million to the University of British Columbia contraception and abortion research team for a 25-month project from March 17, 2023, to March 31, 2025, entitled the “Contraception and abortion research team access project, advancing access to abortion for under-served populations through tools for health professionals and people seeking care”.

As a segment of the project centres on contraception, the project has partnered with the Canadian Pharmacists Association to develop educational resources that support pharmacists prescribing contraception and assist pharmacists in understanding and tailoring their approach for indigenous and racialized populations, including youth and other underserved populations.

With the support of the University of Toronto youth wellness lab, the project will also engage with family planning professionals, for example pharmacists, family physicians, obstetricians, gynecologists, nurses, midwives and social workers, to optimally design affirming and judgment-free services and contraception information care by, with, and for youth. Additionally, the medical expense tax credit has been included to include more costs related to the use of reproductive technologies, making conception more affordable.

In conclusion, our government is committed to improving the sexual and reproductive health of all Canadians. This includes helping to ensure access to a comprehensive suite of contraceptive drugs and devices for all Canadians. By working with provinces and territories, and guided by the principles within Bill C-64, we can make this a reality.

As we move forward, Liberals will continue to work with the provinces and territories, indigenous peoples and other stakeholders to ensure we get this right. The proposed Bill C-64 lays the groundwork for that process and would guide our collaboration. By passing this legislation, we could continue to build on the momentum we have already achieved. We are well on our way and I look forward to working with all parliamentarians to realize the next phase of Canadian health care.

Whether it is dental care; the Canada child benefit; $10 day care and the national learning strategy; helping the almost 3.7 million individuals who have diabetes; or providing dental care for seniors, and now moving into another segment of the population, which I believe is individuals with disabilities, we are going to be there and have the backs of Canadians today and into the future.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have said it before and we will say it again: Quebec is ahead of the game when it comes to pharmacare and many other areas.

I would like to know whether my colleague is aware that in Quebec, a woman who has limited means and no insurance can go to a family planning clinic and get her birth control pills free of charge. Quebec is ahead in this area. It already has public servants working on pharmacare.

Why not simply agree to a transfer and avoid duplicating the work of public servants for Quebeckers?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very important to work with all of the provinces, including Quebec.

Quebec was the first province in Canada to implement the early learning and child care program.

That was a model used nationally in Canada. We have much to learn when working with the provinces and that is what we continue to do. In this case, as identified by the member, if the Province of Quebec has gone down this path, I wish to applaud it and we will continue to work with all the provinces in our country.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way talks about working with Quebec. Alberta has quite an extensive plan for both diabetes and birth control, and other issues.

Will the member commit to working with the Province of Alberta to give it the funding it needs to increase its programs, rather than creating a second program altogether?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the ultimate goal of putting in place measures, like the Canadian dental care plan, and coverage for contraceptives for women and for individuals who have diabetes right now, is to improve their health care outcomes. Of course, Liberals will always work with all provinces and sit down with them, but the ultimate goal has to be to improve the health care system and health outcomes for Canadians. We will continue doing that.

Liberals will put in place the 10-year plan for $200 billion. We have come to agreements with all the provinces, if I am not mistaken. I will double-check that, but I am pretty sure we have. That is what we will continue to do as a government: work collaboratively and effectively for the benefit of all Canadians in this blessed country that we live in.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, when I spoke to this bill, I talked about the importance of Jordan's principle. Unfortunately, the need for it arose because there were jurisdictional disputes about who was to pay the cost of health care for Jordan River Anderson.

I think what is trying to be done with the pharmacare act is to avoid similar scenarios, where people with diabetes, or women or gender-diverse people get the medication they need so their lives can improve.

Can the member talk about why having such parallels is so important, so we are not fighting over jurisdiction and people get the care they need as soon as they can?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, my residents, like the residents of the member for Nunavut, do not care about jurisdiction. They care about the delivery of services, and the outcomes of those services that are provided to them and their families. We need to ensure we maintain a high standard of living, or, in this case, health care system.

When I speak to the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge, they want to know the government is providing the services that are needed, which are accessible and affordable, much like the Canadian dental care plan that we are putting in place. That is what we need to work toward and work with all levels of government on.

In Ontario, there are actually four levels of government, including the regional government. We will continue to work with all levels in collaboration as mentioned by the member for Nunavut.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is such an honour to rise again to speak about the very important bill before us to put in place the beginnings of a pharmacare strategy, particularly as it relates to free contraception and diabetes medication.

As the critic for women and gender equality, I want to focus my comments more on contraception and the fact that this is long overdue if we want to talk about reproductive rights and if we want to talk about creating societies that really, truly uphold equality for women and gender-diverse people. What I found bizarre during the debate is that so many men in this place have fought with such fury against women's reproductive rights. It almost feels like I am back in the 1800s, with the great interest by men in this place fighting against the rights of women over our bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.

It is no surprise. The so-called freedom party, the Conservative Party, is certainly not free when it comes to people's bodily autonomy. I want to point to a couple of comments that were made quite recently. This was in the news today from when the Alberta Conservative member for Peace River—Westlock did an interview with a Liberal MP across the way. The Conservative member stressed that he supports Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's transgender policy that would vote to criminalize cannabis possession again if given the opportunity. Certainly with respect to bodily autonomy, he is supporting Danielle Smith. He also said, in regard to gay marriage, “I vote gay marriage down.”

It is freedom for some and not for others. I have written articles about this, actually, about how Conservatives believe in freedom for some and not for others. I would say there is not much pride in that level of homophobia, when the Conservative member for Peace River—Westlock said, “I vote gay marriage down.” Happy Pride from folks in the House, except for members from the Conservative Party, who have come out with petitions not supporting trans rights. Again, it is another attack on bodily autonomy.

Here we are, talking about women's reproductive rights, and there are a whole bunch of men in the Conservative Party fighting with great enthusiasm against our reproductive rights, against trans rights and against the rights of folks to have same-sex marriage. It is not just the member for Peace River—Westlock. In fact, the member from Carleton, the leader of the Conservative Party, voted against same-sex marriage in the 2000s and against backdoor anti-abortion legislation, Bill C-311 just in the last session, unanimously with all the Conservatives.

When we are talking about freedom, we are not talking about freedom for women and gender-diverse persons to have control over their reproductive rights. When we talk about the transgender community, we are certainly not talking about freedom of bodily autonomy for the transgender community. In fact despite our saying “happy Pride” and raising the pride flag today, there are members of the Conservative Party saying, “I vote gay marriage down”, full stop.

It is one thing for the Conservative leader to say “love is love” and that people can support whom they want, but when it came to Jordan Peterson, known for his anti-trans rhetoric, his homophobia, and his very clear views that violate the reproductive rights of women and gender-diverse people, he came out in full support of Jordan Peterson's agenda. Is that freedom? It is freedom for some and not for others.

The NDP has fought really hard to put in place a pharmacare plan that would include a suite of contraceptives so women and diverse-gender folks can have control over their body, over their livelihood and over their life. I know there are some men in the Conservative Party who want us to go back to the rhythm method. Thank God we have gotten past that to where people can make choices about their body, certainly women, and have control by taking things like birth control. I do not know many men who are running down the street begging for a birth control pill, so the fact they have taken so much time to obstruct a feminist agenda and a woman's right to choose is really telling to me. We cannot go back to that time.

I hear more and more Conservative members tabling anti-trans petitions that have been put forward in the name of so-called protection of the bodily autonomy of women and girls. They table bills that include backdoor legislation in the name of being tough on crime for violent offenders, even though it is opposed by all women's organizations that actually deal with gender-based violence. They are now trying to vote against women and gender-diverse people's access to contraception.

I have to ask this: Why do Conservatives hate women and gender-diverse people so much? Why are they so nosy about going into people's bedrooms? Why is there a thought in their head about who somebody should sleep with or whether somebody is gay or LGBTQ? Why does the so-called freedom party care so much about looking into everybody's bedrooms and finding out what they are doing, figuring out what contraception they are taking, whom they love or whether they want to have an abortion or not? There is nothing free about the party. It feels, actually, like we are going back into the 1800s.

Then Conservatives make the excuse that it is “only” contraception or “only” diabetes medication, which is peculiar to me. It is not surprising that they would think that it is “only” contraception, because the only people I have actually heard talk about pharmacare are men. I could be wrong but I have been here for a lot of the debate. Why would they care about pharmacare? Why would they care about contraception when primarily it has been a women's responsibility historically to deal with contraception? If they want to run out at all hours of the night buying condoms, that is fine. Do they expect women and gender-diverse people to have no choice over their bodily autonomy or reproductive choices so that they can have the rhythm method? This is 2024.

The fact is that, in the midst of Pride, we have to get more security at Pride marches because of anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, and people in the Conservative caucus are cheering on Roe v. Wade, which is not the only one as there are quite a number of social Conservatives, so that we can go back to the era when women were having back-alley abortions with coat hangers and bleeding to death, or 10-year-olds in the United States were having to give birth. I do not want to listen to that hooey. It is just privileged, sexist, homophobic, transphobic hooey.

Women and gender-diverse people have fought hard for their rights. They continue to fight for their rights, and it will not be very easy to just roll over them so there can be the new dude paradise.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has been listening, no doubt, to a number of the Conservatives speak to the legislation, in essence saying that we would not be providing drug X or drug Y, and asking why not this drug, and so forth. Just to pick up on her comments, there are going to be nine million people who would potentially benefit from the passage of the legislation. Could she provide her perspective not only on the degree to which it is being well received in all regions of the country but also on the number of people it would actually affect?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely it would have a really positive impact, but the Liberals are not off the hook here. They might talk about the right to access safe abortions and the right to a safe abortion, but they have failed in terms of providing access, and this does not include the number of Liberal MPs who are listed as anti-choice. I am glad that the Liberals are on board with the NDP pharmacare plan to put in place free contraception and diabetes medication, but they need to look at stuff in their own backyard, including ensuring that all women and gender-diverse people can access safe, trauma-informed abortion care.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I ask a question, I want to talk about something that came to mind when I was listening to my colleague's speech. I am wondering how some men would react if, tomorrow morning, all of the women in this Parliament introduced a bill that forced men to get a vasectomy until they were ready to procreate. Perhaps that is extreme, but no more so than preventing a woman from making her own choice about whether to go forward with a pregnancy or not. In my opinion, preventing her from making that choice is just as extreme, and we should not go there.

That being said, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on how difficult it is to access services in remote areas, particularly any sort of gynecological care services. What does that involve in terms of time, travel and cost for women who need urgent gynecological care?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, quite frankly, most women, historically, have gotten their tubes tied, which is a very major surgery, when we know that vasectomies are much easier. We are not asking people to get vasectomies. We are just saying, if we want a birth control pill, can someone give it to us? There is not just the fact that it is still up to women, in terms of the primary responsibility to consume the contraception, but there is also the fact that people whom it will never affect are violently fighting against it when there are easy solutions.

Let us put all the solutions on the table. We are not even asking for that; we are just asking for free contraception. I think that is pretty reasonable. Ensuring that women can have a choice over their body is a lot cheaper than the emotional turmoil we have heard about with stories shared in the House because they did not have proper contraception to be able to make choices.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do want to ask my hon. colleague a question regarding parental rights, because Conservatives use that as a guise, I think, to pretend to care about women's bodies or unborn babies. I think that the pharmacare act could help make a difference regarding contraceptives and how Canadians need to be better informed when Conservatives are pretending to care through words or slogans like “parental rights”.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, in fact we are studying this in the status of women committee, and just how women's legal groups, particularly, want to actually get rid of claims about parental alienation because they have no scientific basis, which is what they are saying. It actually results, very often, in women and gender-diverse people who are experiencing violence being more victimized. This is well researched.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan.

I would like to get back to the basics on the bill before us, which is on a national pharmacare program. Before we can even consider a program like this, I believe Canadians need to place all of this into context within the fiscal mess that has been created by the Liberal government going forward.

As members know, we are facing a fiscal wall. We are leaving behind, for future generations to pay back, a massive national debt. In fact, over the last nine years, this Prime Minister and his Liberal government have amassed more indebtedness than all previous Canadian governments combined since Confederation. That is one piece of the context.

What about the ongoing deficits being run by this Liberal government? There is no end to them. In fact, time and time again, the finance minister has been asked to at least give us a timeline when we will return to balance, when Canada will begin again to live within its means and not spend more money than is being brought in by taxes. Each time, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister has said nothing. She will not respond to that question, because the answer is that there is no plan. How can we, as a nation, justify billion-dollar program after billion-dollar program without having a plan to bring our fiscal mess back into order? The only way to do that is to come back into balanced budgets, which has not happened.

There is also the challenge of increasing taxes on Canadians. Carbon taxes, which have been the subject of much debate in the House, keep going up and up. Fuel taxes are going up and up. In fact, it was not long ago when my colleague for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon was at committee, and they were grilling the Minister of Small Business. The minister had asserted that she had reduced taxes on small businesses. The simple question that my colleague asked was which tax the minister had reduced on small business. And the answer was, well, humming and hawing. Finally the minister turned to her officials and said that perhaps her officials could answer that question. The officials looked dumbfounded, because they did not have an answer either. The truth is, taxes have not been reduced on small businesses. Across the board, taxes have been raised on Canadians.

Now, within that context, this Liberal government wants to introduce another billion-dollar spending program. The Liberals could have come to us and said, “Listen, the recent budget shows that we will be returning to balance within the next, say, five years, and within that context we'd like to bring forward a program that is going to help those who have no pharmacare coverage.” However, that is not what they did. This government came forward and said that it was going to spend another $40 billion, $50 billion additional, that it would go into deficit by another $40 billion, and that it would throw in this program that would put Canada in the hole for years to come. However, who has to pay all of that back? I heard some heckling over here in the corner because they do not like to hear the truth, but it will be future generations of Canadians, with interest thereon. So that is the context in which this whole pharmacare discussion needs to take place.

This is not a pharmacare plan. Like so many others, this is an empty promise that will leave Canadians deeply disappointed and angry.

Let us remember it was the current Prime Minister who promised affordable housing back when he was first elected in 2015. Instead, what we have is a doubling of housing prices, rents, down payments, interest rates and mortgage payments, and another broken promise. Oh yes, the carbon tax would not cost Canadians anything and we now know from the PBO that in fact that is not true. The Prime Minister promised taxes would go down. He promised safe streets and instead we have chaos, crime and drugs on our streets and social disorder. With so many broken promises, we could go on and on. We could spend hours talking about broken promises, but the pharmacare plan is destined to be just another one of those broken promises.

Now, there is another problem. By its own definition, the pharmacare plan is intended to be a single-payer plan. That means the Government of Canada pays and it is universal, so, of course, the fear is for the 97% of Canadians who already have some kind of coverage, typically through their union plan or company plan, or they may have bought coverage. They would now lose that coverage because the pharmacare plan that is being proposed by the current Liberal government is a very narrow one. It would cover a very small number of medicines when, in fact, most plans across Canada are expansive. Now, it looks like the government wants to insert itself and introduce a plan that would actually cannibalize many of the other plans across Canada. There has been no consultation with the insurance industry and there has been no consultation with the provinces.

Let us remember that health care is the purview of the provinces and yet we have the government starting to step into dental care and pharmacare. That is on top of all the billions and billions of dollars in health care transfers every single year. Somehow, the provinces have not been consulted adequately. We know that some provinces are already providing additional pharmacare support and some provincial leaders are saying, “Listen, instead, give us the cash because we are already providing these services.” Others are saying, “Listen, we have a long list of priorities for our health care system and that is not the top priority. We have a number of other priorities.” For example, how about that mental health funding that was supposed to come to the provinces? It has never happened. Oh, what about that palliative care funding that the Prime Minister promised to the provinces years ago? What happened to that? It is gone. Therefore, the lack of consultation with the provinces and repeated stepping into areas that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces is, I believe, leading us down this road where, without a fiscal plan that will lead us back to budget balance, we continue to heap more spending onto the taxpayer and that is unsustainable.

This pharmacare program is a big program, like so many other programs that the current government tries to introduce and implement. In fact, it was the member for Kingston and the Islands who said that this program is big and complex. Well, if it is big and complex, there is one guarantee: The current Liberal government will not be able to manage it effectively. We think of all the scandals, the spending scandals, GC Strategies, the ArriveCAN scandal and the TMX pipeline that went seven times over budget after the Liberal government purchased that pipeline.

This is the question that Canadians have to ask themselves: Do we trust the current Liberal government and the Prime Minister to manage a pharmacare program that is billions of dollars in the coming years? Do we trust them to manage this program efficiently and effectively? I believe the answer from Canadians would be a resounding no.

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

Madam Speaker, there is the contrast right there from the member. The Conservative Party does not see the national role with regard to health care, even though we have the Canada Health Act and even though the member cannot point out any Constitution that says the federal government does not play a role in health care.

The Conservatives oppose the dental plan. They oppose the pharmacare plan. They oppose the $200 billion we have committed to the provinces over the next 10 years for future generations of health care delivery. Canadians will have a very clear choice to make whenever that next election is, which is going to be, in good part, based on the Conservatives' hidden agenda on health care. Some of that agenda was just unveiled by the member opposite, who made it very clear the Conservative Reform Party of Canada does not support the type of health care system Canadians expect from the national government in working with the provinces.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is simply preposterous. In fact, what I think I heard the member do just now is actually suggest there be constitutional reform to make health care the purview of the federal government instead of the provinces. Now that is a huge step. It is pretty clear and acknowledged across the country, and if one asks the provinces, they will acknowledge it, that health care is a provincial responsibility. Yes, there is a choice Canadians will have to make. In fact, we have asked the Liberal government time and time again to let Canadians make that choice now and to let us have a carbon tax election now. It refuses to do so. Why? Its members are afraid of losing. We, as Conservatives, can do much better on the health care front than these Liberals have done over the past failed nine years.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is wrong when he talks about the national government, because Quebeckers' national government is in Quebec City. This is the federal government. We know that the reason the federal government is interfering in health is because of a loophole in the Constitution called the federal spending power. This is the only federation in the world that has not regulated that in one way or another, because the federal government is predatory and invasive toward the provinces.

The federal government's role is clear. It is to take Quebeckers' money, write a cheque and transfer it to the Government of Quebec and to the provinces so that they can provide care, because the federal government is incapable of providing care. When it does so, particularly for the military, that care is inefficient, ineffective and very costly.

Here is my question for my Conservative colleague. If and when his party takes office, will it commit to respecting the federal government's constitutional role, meeting the demands of all of the provinces and territories and substantially increasing unconditional health transfers to the provinces?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that a future Conservative government will respect the role of the provinces. However, I did hear him say one thing, and he is correct, which is that the Liberal Party and the member who just spoke want to do violence to the Constitution. That is how it was translated: violence to the Constitution. That will be the story in the next election. It is going to be the fact that the Liberal Party wants to trample on the rights of the provinces and usurp the role of the provinces. Shame on him for even suggesting that.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a good deal of respect for the member for Abbotsford, so it is disappointing to hear he does not support some of the core tenets of universal health care in Canada. Of course health care is a shared jurisdiction. Health care delivery is the responsibility of the provinces, but setting national standards and providing funding for health care has always been the purview of the federal government.

One of the core pieces of this legislation we are debating is the fact that universal pharmacare would follow the principles of the Canada Health Act. Does he not accept one of the core tenets of the Canada Health Act and the way in which universal health care has been delivered in Canada since that act came into effect has been that the federal government has a responsibility to set standards and deliver funding, which is precisely what this legislation before us would accomplish?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the delivery of health care is the purview of the provinces. That is indisputable. The provinces have affirmed that time and time again, and so has the Supreme Court of Canada.

However, I would suggest that the premise that somehow the universality of health care is at stake here is preposterous. It is ridiculous to suggest that. We in the Conservative Party believe in universal coverage of health care for every single Canadian.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Mirabel on a point of order.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we all like the member for Winnipeg North, but there are times when we need a modicum of decorum. I think the word “crazy” that was shouted here in the House at the member for Abbotsford was inappropriate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

If I heard correctly, it was “that is crazy”.

It did not necessarily mean that someone was being called crazy.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, it is pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-64 for a second time. I spoke at second reading of this bill on Thursday evening, and I am happy to speak to third reading of the pharmacare pamphlet.

I would like to repeat some of my remarks made during my speech at second reading. I have asked, time and time again, for any of the NDP-Liberal costly coalition members to tell me how many provincial ministers asked for a pharmacare bill at a federal-provincial-territorial meeting. Not one of the Liberal ministers, Liberal members or NDP members actually answered me. Quite frankly, they did not want to say out loud that the answer is zero. This was not at the top of a wish list for any of the provincial health ministers.

I have been talking with our health minister in Saskatchewan. He still has no details about what this pharmacare pamphlet would look like or how it would affect the people of Saskatchewan. The biggest fear at the provincial level is that coverage would lessen in Saskatchewan. They have done a good job of building health care back up in Saskatchewan after the nineties, when the NDP ruined health care in Saskatchewan, which I will get to later in my speech. The provincial health ministers are asking, “Where are the details?”

We have talked about how the federal Liberal government continues to bring in bills without any consultation. We have seen it in agriculture, in oil and gas, and even with the budget. At the agriculture committee on Thursday, I asked the agriculture minister about who he consulted in the ag sector when it came to increasing the capital gains tax exemption from a half to two-thirds. I have not gotten a straight answer from a lot of the Liberal ministers at committee, but to that minister's credit, he said that he did not even know that it was in the budget. A senior minister in the government did not know what was going to be in budget 2024.

I have had the honour of serving in the Government of Saskatchewan, and I know there is quite a process to get a budget approved. It goes through Treasury Board finalization, then through cabinet finalization, then through caucus finalization, and then back to cabinet for a final sign-off.

My colleague, the member for Abbotsford, who gave a great speech, was in government, and I think he probably saw most of what was going to be in the budget before it came out. When a senior minister who has been here for a long time, some might say too long of a time, admitted that senior ranking Liberals did not see the budget before it came out, I was dumbfounded. It was unbelievable.

It does not surprise me, then, that this bill was brought forward with very little consultation with anyone. We all know this was signed off on, on the back of a napkin, to placate the junior NDP partners, so they would prop up the corrupt government for years, or at least until the member for Burnaby South gets his pension. We know what this is about, and it is to ensure that the NDP-Liberal costly coalition stays in power. This is the price Canadians are going to pay.

Right now, 27 million Canadians are anxious about losing some of the health coverage they have right now as they have health coverage that they want to keep. I will admit that 1.1 million Canadians are under-insured or do not have insurance. Why does the government not focus on that? We could have had something rolled out that supplemented the provincial government programs. Instead, the costly Liberal coalition government always wants to be the one that rides in on the white horse, saying, “We are going to save you. We have a national plan.”

We have a national day care plan. A friend of mine is now number 300 on the wait-list in Regina, which is not that big of a city. The government has made day care spots less available in my city of Regina, Saskatchewan.

The federal government has a dental plan that no dentist wants to sign off on. I have a letter from the Saskatchewan Dental Hygienists' Association, where 99% of dental assistants and dental hygienists are female, and there was not one consultation with any of those stakeholder groups about what they should do or if they thought the dental care plan was a good idea. Once again, there was no consultation. This is a recurring theme.

We have a national lunch program for which the Liberals did not do any consultations with any school boards. In Regina, there are a lot of great corporate citizens who donate a lot of money to lunch programs. When we got together as a group and talked about this, I asked if anyone knew how many lunch programs were in our city. The Regina Food Bank covers some programs. Mosaic Market covers some programs. Nutrien covers some programs. If we put all those programs together, we could do a lot of good and almost get to where we need to so all kids could have food when they go to school.

There was no consultation on that either. The Liberals just come in on their white horses and think they are saviours. It is almost like someone over there has a God complex, one might say. They always want to be the one walking in and saving people, but they do not work with anyone else across the country.

Let us get to the pharmacare program. Once again, it is a pharmacare program, with no consultation, that no one asked for at a provincial level. My friend for Winnipeg North talked about how health care is not within provincial jurisdiction, but it is. Health care delivery is within provincial jurisdiction. He knows that, as he is a former MLA. Money transfers come from the federal government, but the day-to-day operational delivery of health care is one hundred per cent a provincial jurisdiction. He knows that.

It is interesting for the Liberals to bring in a national program, or a pamphlet, really, that covers two things, and then act like they are the conquering heroes. Who asked for this at a provincial level? I hope my friend from Winnipeg North will ask me a couple questions about that.

There is one more thing when it comes to health care in our country. The biggest threat to health care in Canada is whenever there is a provincial NDP government. The NDP in Saskatchewan devastated health care. When it was in government, it closed 52 hospitals in my province. It closed 1,200 long-term care beds in Saskatchewan during the nineties. It fired 1,000 nurses, hundreds of doctors, and rural Saskatchewan was divided.

The NDP is the pioneer of our two-tiered health care systems. In Saskatchewan, there is much different health care if someone is in rural Saskatchewan compared to urban Saskatchewan. The NDP went so far as to close the Plains Health Centre hospital in Regina. It was one of the best hospitals in the city and was the newest hospital. The NDP closed it because it was servicing too many rural Saskatchewanians. It was unbelievable.

We now have a government in B.C., an NDP provincial government, that is pioneering a pharmacare program, but it has it backward. It is giving B.C. residents free drugs that are killing them, instead of having a plan in place to give residents affordable drugs that would be life-saving. That is what B.C. is doing right now.

Instead of putting money toward life-saving drugs, the Liberals want a safe supply, which I do not think exists. They continue to spend taxpayers' dollars in British Columbia to give drugs to people who are killing themselves with those drugs. That is so opposite to what a government should be doing. The Liberals want to come in like they are champions of pharmacare. They should talk to some of their B.C. cousins about what is going on in that province. They should take some of the money they are spending putting illicit hard drugs on the street, and maybe supplement that with some programs that would give drugs to people that would help save their lives instead of end their lives.

I would end with one more conversation about how consultation is so disregarded by the government. Obviously, the NDP are going to vote for this terrible piece of legislation. The Liberals will vote for it.

One thing I would say to members is to please consult with the health ministers of the provincial governments because Saskatchewan is doing a great job. It has diabetes coverage for everyone up to age 25. We have a $25 cap on senior drugs, a program that helps seniors make sure they get the medication they need.

Provinces are in charge of the delivery of the health care system. Please let them keep that in their domain, and do the proper thing and consult with the health ministers in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I can clearly say I have never, in my political career, ever said that the provinces do not play a role in health care. Just because one of the member's Conservative friends tells him I said that, does not necessarily mean I said it. I can assure the member I understand and appreciate the important, critical role provinces play in health care.

The member asked where the idea came from. Back in 2017, I was out getting signatures on petitions. People not only want the federal government to play a role in health care, but they also want the federal government to move forward with a national pharmacare program, ideally one where we could have a multitude of medications in the program, but that could take time. That would require provincial involvement.

Does the member not agree that the vast majority of Canadians want to see the federal government's presence in health care?

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

Madam Speaker, I think he doth protest too much. He did say that the provinces do not have a role in health care. I believe the federal transfers are part of a responsibility the federal government has to make sure that it has the proper money to run the health care system in the provinces. The member never answered my question. I would love for him to table the information, the correspondence, regarding which health ministers, how many health ministers, wrote to this long, nine-year costly coalition, wrote to the federal health minister, to say that the first thing one should do after the 2020 election would be to try to bring in a pharmacare plan. The answer is zero.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fascinating speech.

Obviously, health care is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction, but there is something called the fiscal imbalance. We know that the most important responsibilities of a welfare state are incumbent on the provinces but that the revenue largely goes to Ottawa. That means funds must unconditionally be transferred to the provinces. During the debate, the Conservatives said that they wanted to respect provincial jurisdictions and stop interfering.

There is an expression known as “starve the beast”. That suggests that is what they are going to do. They seem to be hinting that they are going to cut our funding if Quebec does its own thing when it comes to health care. If the Conservatives should take power one day, will they commit to significantly increasing unconditional health transfers to the provinces and Quebec, as the premiers of the 10 provinces and three territories are calling for?

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

Madam Speaker, I had a colleague in Saskatchewan who always had a great saying, which is that the best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour. I believe, despite Liberal rhetoric, that the health care transfers continued to increase under former prime minister Harper. They were maybe not as high as they would have liked, but there was an increase every year to the provinces when it came to health care transfers. That was our past performance, and I would expect that would stay the same.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Regina—Lewvan was quite adamant that health care delivery is the purview of the provinces. I think that when he reads the bill, Bill C-64, he will be delighted to find that, in the pharmacare proposal that we are debating today, the delivery of pharmacare is delivered by the provinces.

The other thing I think he will be quite delighted with is the fact that provinces will have the ability to sign on or not to sign on with the pharmacare plan that is being debated. I think the only challenge he is going to have is that, when the Province of Manitoba and the Province of British Columbia sign on and when their residents start receiving free contraception and free diabetes medication and devices, the residents of his province, his constituents, are going to start asking why they are not able to tap into the benefits of universal pharmacare.

I would just ask him what he is going to say to them in those situations.

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

Madam Speaker, I do like the little cute condescension from the NDP: “when he reads the bill”. The bill, Bill C-64, is four pages. I did read the bill. It is really cute when they have that passive-aggressive tone. It is adorable.

If they sign on and if they do take the universal single-payer coverage, what are his constituents going to say when their coverage is less than what they had before?

What is he going to say to 27 million Canadians who are losing better coverage because they are going to add coverage that is not as good as what they have right now? They would have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents when they try to take away the coverage they have right now and give them less coverage.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Milton.

I want to address what I would suggest is the ultimate potential assault on health care by the Conservative-Reform Party of Canada. For the record, to be very clear, one needs to look at what the member for Abbotsford said today, which has been repeated in many different ways by different members. I have often talked about the hidden Conservative-Reform agenda.

I personally see health care as an important issue going into the next federal election, and my intention is to point out the contrast. When I say that the Conservative Party has crazy policies, we should think about them saying that the federal government has no constitutional role. One would think they were separatists, like the Bloc. They believe the federal government should just be an ATM machine, hand over the cash and say nothing about health care because the federal government has no role to play. Both the Conservatives and the Bloc believe that there is no role for the federal government to play in health care.

Then, they say that it is a constitutional God-given right that provinces are the only ones that have anything to do with health care. That is absolutely wrong. I would ask members to cite a Supreme Court of Canada decision that says that the Canada Health Act is in violation of the Constitution. I would like members to tell me which premier or which province took the government to the Supreme Court and had a favourable ruling on that issue. The simple answer is that it has not happened. That is why the Conservative spin of misinformation continues to flow, and that is most unfortunate.

Unlike the Conservative Party, Liberals understand and value the important role that the federal government in Ottawa plays. In terms of the pharmacare program, it is interesting to hear from different opposition members, the Conservatives and the Bloc, as they have that unholy alliance on Bill C-64 for different reasons. We have well over 100 policies on pharmacare, depending on what province people are in or which company they work for. There are many different types of policies facing the pharmacare issue.

The idea of a national pharmacare program is nothing new. The Prime Minister is moving the issue forward. That is what Bill C-64 is all about. It recognizes there is a need for the national government to work, where it can, with provinces, to develop a national pharmacare program that has similarities in all regions of the country. The way I see it, there are two areas where we are focusing a great deal of attention today. I see it as a step forward. I believe that provinces will continue to look at what is being proposed and will come on board.

The arguments I hear from the Conservative Party today are the types of arguments one would have heard generations ago regarding health care when public health was brought in. Those are the types of arguments of deniers. I suspect we will never hear the Conservative Party saying they are going to get rid of the Canada Health Act. Maybe a good opposition day motion would be what people have to say about the Canada Health Act and whether they support it or not.

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

You could ask when you are in opposition.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way says that we cannot propose a motion of that nature because we are not in opposition. Maybe in 10 years, or whenever it might happen, we will have the opportunity.

I suspect that even Conservative reformers, the very far right, would recognize that Canadians treasure and value the health care system we have today. They see it as a part of our Canadian identity. The federal government played a critical role in that. It was the Province of Saskatchewan that led the way in ensuring that the federal government here in Ottawa would be able to expand upon it so that all Canadians would be able to benefit by it. Bringing forward the idea that if someone has diabetes, no matter where they live in Canada, they would have public assistance in terms of those medications and have public support, I see that as a positive thing.

Today, the reality is that it depends on what province and what sort of private insurance that someone may have, maybe not as much of a deductible. It varies across the land. Many Canadians do not even have the opportunity to have virtually any subsidy, in terms of the medications required for diabetes.

It has been reported that just over 3.5 million Canadians are dealing with diabetes today. I heard that as many as 25% of those individuals reported that because of the cost, they are not taking all the medications they should be taking to deal with their diabetes. What is the consequence of not being able to take the medications? It could mean someone could prematurely lose their eyesight and become blind. It could mean having an amputation as a direct result. Again, affordability depends on the province where a person lives or on the company the person works for.

We have a national government saying that it believes this is a wonderful, positive step forward to see strong national leadership in providing this medication. This would profoundly change, in a positive way, the lives of many Canadians in every region of the country, including all provinces. This is factual. This would ultimately put us in a better light moving forward. This should come as no surprise.

We have had different social groups, such as unions, come to Parliament. They have been advocating for it. We have had a standing committee deal with it. We have had it incorporated into budgets. We have had statements from ministers of finance in regard to this, and the Prime Minister has been talking about it for a number of years. I have brought forward many petitions on the issue. There is no surprise here. If members actually consulted with their constituents, they would find that there is a wide spectrum, in terms of appetite, for the federal government not only to continue dealing with this, but also to consider other possibilities.

Why is it that the Conservative reformers feel that the federal government's role in health care should be diminished? They are not only against pharmacare but also against the dental plan. They are also against the commitment to provide $200 billion for 10 years for future generations of health and to provide the cash resources to support provinces. That is what I hope to be talking a lot about in the next federal election in 16 to 18 months. I believe that a vast majority of Canadians are behind this policy.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am always enlightened when I hear the member for Winnipeg North say those words on the floor of the House of Commons, because he must be the only member from his party who can actually address these things. We hear him many times over, and I thank him again for those comments.

There is something my party and I are united on as far as what we oppose is concerned. We oppose these ongoing deficits that are growing and getting to be more and more of an impact on Canadians, especially with inflation. Inflation is going to run this country into the ground and, frankly, make everything more expensive, including the drugs that the member is talking about. They are going to cost more and more, and we are going to be in a spiral as we go forward here. We are united against ongoing deficits and ongoing spending.

The member has not even looked at how much this is going to cost the treasury going forward; it is only a guess. Where is it going to stop? We cannot spend any more. We are just going to keep spending ourselves into eternity here. Can he tell us where the end is in sight?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. leader of the government in the House is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, I just spoke for about 10 minutes about how important health care is to Canadians, and how important it is that we, as a national government, step up to the plate on things such as a national pharmacare program and a national dental care program, to be there for our constituents, and what does the Reform-Conservative Party across the way say? “What about the billions of dollars? Instead of spending them on health, maybe we should be dealing with the debt or the impact it is going to have on inflation?”

Yes, we have inflation in Canada, but I will contrast our inflation rate to that of any other country in the world. We are doing reasonably well. However, I can say that we cannot trust the Conservatives. With their hidden agenda, health care is not safe.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am certain my colleague is expecting my question.

Health care is a jurisdiction of Quebec and the Canadian provinces. Quebec already has a pharmacare program. It is not perfect, but we can improve it.

Why is the government stubbornly trying to duplicate services in Quebec by offering its own separate insurance plan instead of letting Quebec manage it with the right to opt out with compensation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there will be people in the province of Quebec who will, in fact, benefit from this particular program. If we canvass the entire country, we will see, depending on the province or territory, different types of policies regarding the issue.

What we are looking at through this legislation is ultimately working with the provinces so that if a person has diabetes in Canada, they can anticipate medications at no cost, whether they live in Halifax, Montreal, Quebec City, Winnipeg, Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver or Whitehorse. That is the idea of having a national program. Different provinces have different programs, and private insurance companies have different deductibles, depending on the company, which is the reason why it is important that the federal government step up. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and the Bloc are voting against this.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I know personally of people who, because they do not have the diabetes medication they need, are at risk of amputations. There are people, as well, who deserve better protections for contraceptives. For example, not all indigenous women can have access to contraceptives, especially when we know that, on this fifth anniversary of the publication of the MMIWG's calls for justice, this particular bill can make a difference in making sure that indigenous women get the protections they need.

I wonder if the member can share with us his response on why it is so important to provide diabetes medication, as well as contraceptives, why safe abortions are severely needed and why contraceptives are a particular need that was focused on in this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe there is at least one province, possibly even more, that has acted on the issue of contraceptives. We will find, as I said, that there are different policies in different provinces, and so forth.

What is really important to recognize is that Bill C-64 would help an estimated nine million people in dealing with contraceptives. When we think about diabetes medications, we are talking about over 3.5 million people. That is a lot of good reasons to get behind this legislation and ensure there are some standards across the nation.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening to discuss the bill before us, Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare. We can all agree, or I hope we can all agree, that Canadians should have access to the right medicines at an affordable price regardless of where they live in our country. That is precisely what Bill C-64 would do. It represents the first phase toward a national pharmacare plan, starting with the provision of universal single-payer coverage for contraception and diabetes medications. This legislation is an important step forward to improve health equity, affordability and outcomes and has the potential of long-term savings to the health care system and for all Canadians who use it.

In budget 2024, we announced $1.5 billion over five years to support the launch of national pharmacare and coverage for contraception and diabetes medications. The single most important barrier to access to contraception in Canada is cost. For example, the typical cost for select contraceptives in our country for an uninsured Canadian woman is up to $25 per unit, or $300 per year, for oral birth control pills and up to $500 per unit for a hormonal IUD, which is effective for five years.

It occurs to me that if oil and gas companies were going to start selling diabetes medications, insulin or contraceptives, the Conservatives might be all for it. It seems like they are the only group, the only organization, and the only affordability measures the Conservatives can come up with are supports for oil and gas.

However, Canadians have lots of expenses, and one of the main expenses associated with inequality and inequities in our society is their medications. We are here to help. Some populations are disproportionately affected by the lack of coverage. Women, people with low incomes and young people, all of whom are more likely to work in part-time or contract positions and thereby not have access to a drug plan, often lack access to private coverage. One study found that women from lower-income households are more likely to use less effective contraceptive methods or no contraceptive method at all as a result of their lower-income situation.

Bill C-64 would ensure that Canadians have access to a comprehensive suite of options when it comes to contraceptive drugs and devices, because improved access to contraception improves equality. This means that every woman in Canada would have the ability to choose the contraceptive that is best for her, regardless of her ability to pay. This would contribute to her right to have bodily autonomy, which is what this government fully supports.

Sexual and reproductive health is a priority for this government. This is reflected in Bill C-64, as I have mentioned, but it goes beyond that in other significant federal initiatives. Our government is committed to improving the sexual and reproductive health outcomes for all Canadians, and this includes helping to ensure access to a comprehensive suite of contraceptive drugs and devices for everyone. By working with provinces and territories and guided by the principles within Bill C-64, we can make this a reality.

The proposed Bill C-64 lays the groundwork for that process, and through it, with collaboration with provinces and territories, we are helping to fight for affordability for all Canadians. By passing this legislation, collectively, we can all continue to build on the momentum we have already achieved.

I looked into this. Pharmacare in Canada is deeply popular with people who vote for all parties. It is almost 90%, in fact. This is something I expect all members of Parliament to get behind. It is something a lot of Canadians support, regardless of party.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of reasons to heckle in this House. Perhaps the Conservatives disagree with me on some key issues, but I find it really remarkable that they want to heckle and tell me that we should not be fighting for Canadians to have access to the drugs they need in order to live healthy and fulfilling lives. It really is remarkable and just re-emphasizes that if oil and gas was selling insulin and IUDs, the Conservatives would be the first ones to line up and say that we need to support these companies. It does not seem like they are really in it for Canadians, particularly lower-income Canadians, who are struggling with their bills. It is clear to me that the Conservatives only care about the oil and gas lobby. In fact, I think they are trying to put the oil and gas lobby out of business.

With the time remaining, I would like to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, our earpieces are not working, because I could not hear any of the heckling on this side of the floor to which the member opposite was referring.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I did not react to it, but yes, there was heckling.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There is not only heckling but also unnecessary interruption.

I will use my remaining time to talk about diabetes and those living with diabetes. Diabetes is a disease with no cure. There is a treatment, and it is thanks to Canadian science, which is something that our government supports. Canadian scientist Frederick Banting and his team came up with an interim solution, I suppose we could call it; it is a treatment for diabetes that allows diabetics to live. Without it, diabetics would not have the opportunity to live fulfilling lives, but we still need to fight for a cure. Before we get there, we should also ensure that we reduce inequality and inequities in the populations impacted by diabetes.

There is a really interesting infographic from the Public Health Agency of Canada. Anybody who is watching this debate might be interested in how diabetes and inequality intersect in Canada. I was actually very surprised to learn that diabetes and employment status are related; there is a positive correlation between them. When people are employed, they are less likely to suffer from diabetes and live with diabetes. When people are permanently unable to work, they are more likely to have diabetes, which means that they naturally have a lower income. It is the same for education level, surprisingly. Almost 10% of those individuals with less than a high school education will have diabetes or prediabetes throughout their life; for university graduates, that goes down to between 3.5% and 6.1%. There is also a positive relationship within income quintiles. All five income quintiles are associated with a positive relationship. As income goes up, people are less likely to have diabetes. Therefore, providing folks living with diabetes with free access to medication, to insulin and to supports for managing their illness is also an affordability measure that would make a difference for a lot of Canadians.

Diabetes also affects people disproportionately in different categories. There are complex social and environmental behavioural factors that result in inequalities in the burden of diabetes between certain populations in Canada. The prevalence of diabetes is 2.3% higher among South Asian Canadians, and it is 2.1% higher among Black adults.

For indigenous adults, the prevalence of diabetes is similarly staggering, at 1.9% higher for first nations Canadians living off reserve. Inequities experienced by first nations, Inuit and Métis populations are a direct result of colonial policies and practices that included massive forced relocation, loss of lands, creation of the reserve system, banning of indigenous languages and cultural practices, and the creation of the harmful residential school system. Unaddressed intergenerational trauma adds to the ongoing challenges faced by indigenous peoples, and providing them with a reliable and affordable treatment for diabetes would support affordability.

This would also reduce the number of times people with diabetes have to access health care as a result of their illness. People with diabetes are more at risk of all sorts of life-changing health crises, such as a heart attack or stroke, kidney failure, blindness and amputation. At this very moment, there are about 3.7 million Canadians, or 9.4% of our population, who have been diagnosed and have to manage their condition for their entire life. If members can believe it, in 2015, 25% of Canadians with diabetes indicated that they followed their treatments to a T, but they were affected by cost; in some cases, those Canadians were rationing medications to save money. Therefore, a quarter of the people who are following their treatments are affected by cost. There are other Canadians who are undiagnosed, and there are Canadians who are not following their treatments. We need to make sure that they live a healthy and fulfilled life, and one way to do that is to ensure that they have access to this vital medication.

About one out of three people is living with diabetes or prediabetes today in Canada, and rates of diabetes are ever rising. It is estimated that, by 2028, over 13 million Canadians, or 32% of the population, will have diabetes or prediabetes. Through Bill C-64 and the work of the national framework for diabetes, we can improve aspects of preventative care as well. We can do this through information sharing and knowledge transfer, while also ensuring that those living with diabetes have access to insulin and other diabetes medications.

This is a cost-saving endeavour. The Conservatives have continually referred to this as a spending program, as if it would not be invested directly in the health of Canadians. Not only would it be invested in their long-term health outcomes, but it would also be invested directly in their affordability. It would support affordability, and, as I pointed out, that is something that is positively correlated with other risk factors.

We introduced the national framework for diabetes in 2022 to align multisectoral efforts to reduce the impact of diabetes in Canada. The framework comprises about six interdependent and interconnected components that represent the range of areas where opportunities to advance efforts on diabetes could and will be beneficial.

Bill C-64 would support people living with diabetes, whether through improving access to the medications they need or giving them the tools they need to have a better quality of life in Canada. We are here for Canadians. Our plan to provide universal coverage for contraception and diabetes medications would be transformative, and I still have faith that the Conservatives will see the light and recognize that this is a very popular and worthwhile endeavour.

We should all get behind national pharmacare for Canadians.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I just want to raise to the attention of the House a really important matter that happened, and I am sure that I can have unanimous consent. We know the important role that pages play in the House of Commons to help support us. One of the annual traditions here in the House of Commons has been the actual ability to have a soccer game among pages and MPs, and last week—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I want to remind the hon. member that the question of props is an issue, so I would invite the member not to handle a prop.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be very quick, but I just want to recognize that there is an annual game played among MPs and pages. It is a long-standing tradition, and the game took place last week. I am pleased to present the fact that the—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That would be more in the nature of a member's statement than a point of order.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, a national drug program or pharmacare program would be a great idea if we were not a trillion dollars in the hole. As a consequence of being so in debt, taxes are going up and driving our doctors out of the country. How is a pharmacare program going to help people who do not even have a doctor to provide a prescription and have no way of getting a prescription? How is the government going to decide who gets the medicine when there is a drug shortage, as we have seen recently with diabetes? How are they going to decide who lives and dies?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is beyond the pale that Conservatives continue to refer to a national pharmacare plan as an expenditure that we just cannot afford. It is so unfortunate.

This is an affordability measure. It is a way to support Canadians who are vulnerable. It is a proven method to ensure that vulnerable, lower-income and disproportionately impacted Canadians will receive the financial support they need. There are Canadians living in period poverty, who cannot access contraception and who just simply do not have regular access to diabetes medications.

A government is required to be able to do many complicated things simultaneously. We need to address the doctor shortage. We need to meet Canadians where they are and ensure they have the medications that they deserve and that they need in order to live full and fulfilled lives.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He just responded to the Conservatives by saying that this money needs to be spent to provide a service. I agree with him. However, we have to be efficient. To be efficient, we should entrust this money to the people who are competent.

A system already exists in Quebec. My colleague is well aware of it. I am going to give him a mission to fulfill within his party, his government. He needs to convince his caucus and the people who run it to transfer the money to Quebec, unconditionally.

I can assure the House that the Quebec government will get the job done on health care because that falls within its jurisdiction.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but it is always the same story with the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc members always say that in Canada, the provincial government, in this case Quebec, is wholly responsible for the health care system. In actual fact, that is the case until the bill arrives and it is time to pay for the health care system.

Canada's health care system is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments. We need only think of the health care provided at the regional level in my riding. It is so important that we find solutions together.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, we hear from the Conservative caucus about the costs of pharmacare. The member spoke about how this is needed for an affordability measure, but we have not heard about how national single-payer pharmacare saves money. The Parliamentary Budget Officer tabled a report saying that $1.4 billion would be saved because national single-payer pharmacare gives governments the negotiating and bargaining power to drive down drug costs. Therefore, it is not surprising to see Conservatives oppose it when their friends, the lobbyists, the CEOs and big pharma keep saying the same things that they do.

Can the member speak to how Conservatives are constantly looking out for the corporations at the very top instead of everyday Canadians who are struggling to pay for essential medications?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. This is not only a cost-savings measure for the government, the health care system or people who live with diabetes or require contraception, but it is also a way to save money within the system. When Canadians stick to their regimen and take their diabetes medication, they will visit the hospital less often. We want to make sure not only that they live healthy and fulfilled lives but also that we save money in the health care system. However, it is the case again that Conservatives are really only here for the lobbyists and never for everyday people—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am aware that there will be about three minutes for my speech. I am not sure if the time carries forward or whether we are done debate, but if it does I will be splitting my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

It is my pleasure to rise in this House. I want to put a little context around the pharmacare situation and, really, the economy in general. The future Liberal leader Mark Carney said that it is impossible to redistribute what one does not have. That is the very scenario that we find ourselves in.

Over the last nine years, we have experienced incredible fiscal and monetary, I might add, mismanagement of our economy. When the Liberals took the reins of power nine years ago, we had a balanced budget and we had a low GDP-to-debt ratio. Now, some nine years later, we have one of the worst debt-to-GDP ratios. We are looking at about 43%, in terms of debt-to-GDP ratio, which is shocking because the finance minister clearly said in 2022 that the government has a “fiscal anchor”, a line it shall not cross, and that the debt-to-GDP ratio would not increase.

Then what did it do? It went up. According to the PBO, who we heard from today, it is actually going to go up the next two years. Speaking of the PBO, I am not sure if anyone caught this because it was only audio, unfortunately, but members will not believe what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. He was getting challenged by Liberals for the error he made with respect to the calculation of the carbon tax, and what he said is that he actually knows his numbers are right because he has the numbers in front of him, the same numbers that the Liberals would not release to the public.

It is incredible. The PBO came out and said that he has their analysis, but he just cannot share it because the Liberals will not share it. They have a carbon tax analysis that shows six out of 10 Canadians pay more in carbon tax than they get back in rebate.

That being said, I will just sum up my three minutes with this comment from the great Margaret Thatcher. She said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.” We have hit that point. We are now paying more in interest than we are in health care transfers. Let us have a little common sense, the government cannot redistribute what it does not have. An obsession with redistribution to the extent that it is no longer focusing on growth will hurt everyone, most notably the most vulnerable.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 6:27 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, May 22, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #794

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I declare the motion carried.