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

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 10, An Act respecting pharmacare received royal assent. Among other things, this act will provide Canadian women with universal single-payer coverage for various contraceptives. Nine million women and gender-diverse people will benefit from that.

Over the past few months, many women in my riding of Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne have told me how important this act is for them. Canadian women want to be able to choose if, when and how they start a family. Our government listened to them. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against this act every step of the way.

We know the cost of contraceptives is one of the many barriers to gender equity in Canada. Our government will always stand up for a woman's right to choose and make medical decisions about her own body. Our Pharmacare Act delivers on that commitment.

Pharmacare

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a momentous day for Canadian health care. Bill C-64, the Pharmacare Act, received royal assent. This landmark legislation will establish a framework for national, publicly funded, single-payer universal drug coverage; it will ensure that Canadians across the country have access to the diabetes medications and contraception they need.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health share with the House what passing this landmark pharmacare legislation will mean for the health of Canadians?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

October 10, 2024

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 10th day of October, 2024, at 6:26 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Secretary to the Governor General,

Ken MacKillop

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S‑205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders)—Chapter 22; Bill C‑291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material)—Chapter 23; and Bill C‑64, An Act respecting pharmacare—Chapter 24.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, my daily attempts to reach out to opposition members and improve the efficiency of the business of the House are always rebuffed out of hand. The Conservatives would rather filibuster, raise totally fake questions of privilege, and use all sorts of delay tactics in the House to prevent the government from passing measures that are going to help Canadians in their daily lives.

Despite it all, I will continue to reach out to opposition members to make sure that the business of the House takes place efficiently.

This evening, we will deal with report stage of Bill C-64 respecting pharmacare. Tomorrow, we will commence second reading of Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. On Monday, we will call Bill C-64 again, this time at third reading stage.

I would also like to inform the House that next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days. On Wednesday, we will consider second reading of Bill C‑61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Next week, we will also give priority to Bill C‑20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, and Bill C‑40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.

Department of Health—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Chair, first of all, for Dylan and Kim, I appreciate the member's advocacy. I cannot imagine how difficult that circumstance is, and that is exactly what we want to shut down. This is precisely why we are acting on pharmacare.

One very important question we have is about which model to use. We have a pilot in P.E.I. that is working very well, which is based on a fill-in-the-gaps model. The model that Bill C-64 is based on is a universal model. We are now looking at those two models in a real-world setting to see which one is best to use as a delivery mechanism for all drugs. We have a committee that will be looking at that over the next year, which will really paint that path forward.

These are very active matters of consideration, and this is one of the reasons it is so important that we establish that bedrock, which is the legislative foundation for pharmacare in Bill C-64, and take this action. In this way, we can make sure that we get to help families such as that of Dylan and Kim. That is envisioned in Bill C-64, and very much in my heart and in my mind as we are working on this.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I need to move to the next question.

My next question is on a concerning limitation in Bill C-64 brought to me by a senior in my community. The bill, of course, is designed to provide coverage for specific prescription drugs and products intended for contraception and the treatment of diabetes. My concern and that of this constituent is that critical equipment to administer medication and monitor blood sugar levels for people with diabetes, like real-time continuous glucose monitoring devices, is not included. Instead, the Health Canada website states, “the federal government is announcing its intention to establish a fund to support access to diabetes devices and supplies.”

Glucose monitoring devices cost between $2,000 and $6,000 per year and are a crucial part of diabetes management. While providing insulin is an important measure and the Greens support it wholeheartedly, I am concerned that this senior is still on the hook for hundreds of dollars a month for this essential tool in managing her diabetes, even with the passage, once we get there, of Bill C-64.

Will the minister commit to establishing this fund to ensure that glucose monitoring devices required by diabetics will be covered across the country, and if so, by when?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, the question was regarding Bill C-64.

Can the Minister of Health tell us if Bill C-64 would provide for any government funding for any ailments other than diabetes?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, would Bill C-64 provide for any government funding for any other rare diseases?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, would Bill C-64 provide for government-funded asthma medications?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, would Bill C-64 provide for government-funded ALS medications?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, to the Minister of Health, would Bill C-64 provide for government-funded heart medications?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking for a bit before I direct some questions to the ministers.

No Canadian should have to choose between paying for prescription drugs or putting food on the table. Unfortunately, many are still forced to make this impossible decision. It is why our government continues to work with provinces, territories and stakeholders to ensure that Canadians have better access to the drugs they need. Today, I will be providing an overview of some of the work by first highlighting our latest announcement, which presents a significant step forward towards national pharmacare.

On February 29, the Minister of Health introduced Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, which proposes the foundational principles of the first phase of a national universal pharmacare plan in Canada. Bill C-64 describes our government's work with provinces and territories to provide universal single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications. In parallel to this, our government announced its plans to establish a fund to support Canada's access to supplies that people living with diabetes require to manage and monitor their condition and administer their medication, such as syringes and glucose test strips. These are impactful initiatives that can positively change the lives of millions of Canadians.

For example, coverage for contraceptives will mean that Canadians of reproductive age, which is nearly one-quarter of Canada's population, will have better access to contraception and reproductive autonomy. This access will improve equality, help reduce the risks of unintended pregnancies and improve a woman's ability to plan for the future.

Cost has been identified by Canadian contraceptive care providers as the single most important barrier to access these medications. Bill C-64 would ensure that Canadians will have access to a suite of contraceptive drugs and devices.

Similarly, one in four Canadians with diabetes have reported not following their treatment plan due to cost. Improving access to diabetes medication will help improve the health of almost four million Canadians living with diabetes and reduce the risk of serious life-changing health complications. These complications include permanent effects to the health and well-being of a person with diabetes, such as heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, blindness and amputation.

This bill also demonstrates our government's commitment to consulting widely on the way forward, including the need to work with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples and other partners and stakeholders. It includes four principles that the Minister of Health is to consider when collaborating with partners towards the implementation of national pharmacare. They are accessibility, affordability, appropriate use and universal coverage.

Bill C-64 would also provide that the new Canadian drug agency would work towards the development of a national formulary developing a national bulk purchasing strategy and supporting the publication of a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription medications. It would also require the Minister of Health to establish a committee of experts to help make recommendations on the operation and financing of national, universal single-payer pharmacare in Canada. Together, these elements would inform the next key steps towards a national, universal pharmacare in Canada, building on the work already under way.

The work under way already includes the previously mentioned Canadian drug agency. The creation of the CDA was announced in December 2023 with an investment of over $89 million over five years. Built from the existing Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, and in partnership with provinces and territories, the CDA will provide the dedicated leadership and coordination needed to make Canada's drug system more sustainable and better prepared for the future in helping Canadians achieve better health outcomes. Engagement with provinces, territories, partners and stakeholders will continue to be an important part of the agency's path forward.

In addition, our government launched the first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases, as announced in March 2023. This investment of up to $1.5 billion over three years will help increase access to and the affordability of drugs for rare diseases, with the aim of improving the health and quality of life of people living with rare diseases across the country. As part of this strategy, our government will create bilateral agreements with our provincial and territorial partners to make up $1.4 billion over three years, with a focus on improving access to new emerging drugs that treat rare diseases. We will also support better access to existing drugs and activities directed at improving screening and early diagnosis for rare diseases. The aim of these efforts is to help people living with rare diseases across Canada obtain earlier access to treatments and a chance at a better quality of life.

Our government is now working with provinces and territories on these bilateral agreements, starting with jointly determining a small set of new and emerging drugs that would be cost-shared and covered in a consistent way across the country for the benefit of Canadians living with rare diseases. I am also excited to share with members an update on the excellent progress we are making with the Government of Prince Edward Island to improve access to medication for island residents.

Similar to the work under way for the drugs for rare diseases strategy, our work with P.E.I. will also inform the advancement of national pharmacare. Under the improving affordable access to prescriptions drugs program with P.E.I., those who experience the most vulnerability, including uninsured island residents, seniors, and families with a high burden of medication costs, have seen immediate benefits, including improved access to medication and reduced copays.

Through this partnership, which includes a federal investment of $35 million, P.E.I. has expanded access to over 100 medications to treat a variety of conditions, including heart disease, cancer, and MS. Last June, P.E.I. also reduced copays to $5 for almost 60% of medications regularly used by island residents. Under their seniors' drug program, the family health benefit drug program, the generic drug program and the diabetes drug program, this program has led to island residents saving $2.5 million in out-of-pocket costs so far.

Speaking to our efforts more broadly, we continue to work on regulatory innovation, including agile licensing for drugs to better support drug oversight, both before and after the sale, due to the evolving market. These updated regulations will improve safety, support economic growth, and benefit both Canadians and industry.

In closing, no one should struggle with paying for the prescription drugs they need. Our government will continue to work with provinces, territories and stakeholders on the pharmacare initiatives I have outlined and continue to work with parliamentarians in passing Bill C-64. By working together, we can realize our goal of achieving national pharmacare, which will benefit all Canadians.

My first question is directed to the Minister of Health. Before I was elected to this place, I was the chair of the board of an incredible organization, Quest Community Health Centre. I know, as the Minister of Health knows, that community health centres look to what is missing in communities to fill a void. One of those things in St. Catharines and, of course, across the world, although we can only help in our little corner, was the lack of access to dental care. The staff at Quest, led by Coletta McGrath and Jenny Stranges, was incredible. They were able to build a team of volunteer dentists and hygienists who came in to provide care for those who had not had treatment in decades, who use the emergency room as their dental care. Some would say that they would be a burden on the system, but they were just trying to get pain relief.

I was able to get messages, as the chair, from people who were grateful for having received this service, who could smile again, who could go to job interviews, who could smile with their grandchildren. It is shocking that the Conservatives would deny this to Canadians

I was wondering if the Minister of Health could outline what the government is doing and what the progress of our dental care plan is. I do not need him to respond in the time allotted. I was hoping he could provide an update on the dental care plan.

Request for Office of Speaker to be Vacated—Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Madam Speaker, my comments are definitely relevant because today's debate is derailing all the discussions on Bill C-64, which has just been tabled in the House at report stage.

Does my colleague think that there is a connection between the Conservative Party's and the Bloc Québécois's determination to block this bill and the fact that these two parties always want to debate the topic that we are debating today?

Health

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Health, which is in relation to Bill C-64.

The committee has studied the bill and decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Because of the importance of this legislation and because of the programming motion that referred it to our committee, the level of effort given by the support team from the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament was absolutely commendable. I wish to sincerely thank them for our being able to present the report in such a timely fashion today.

Request for Office of Speaker to be Vacated

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pretty critical point in the legislative agenda that has come up.

I agree with the Bloc Québécois member and her argument that there are many bills we would like to discuss.

I appreciate that this is a critical time right now. We have a lot of legislation that we need to discuss in the House, legislation that our constituents have sent us to this place to get through. It is serious things that are so important, such as Bill C-49, Bill C-59, Bill C-70 and Bill C-64. We have two opposition day motions just this week. We are trying to deliver the help that Canadians so desperately need, including through legislation like the fall economic statement, which the official opposition has filibustered at committee for months and which is something that would deliver a great deal of support in terms of housing.

Something I am particularly proud of as a part of that piece of legislation is actually the removal of the HST on psychotherapy and counselling services. It is something that would help those who are working within that profession, and something that I actually had a conversation about just yesterday with a psychotherapist who asked me when we would be getting the legislation passed. I said we are working on it and trying to make sure it goes through. The person I spoke to needs the fairness for the removal of the federal tax to occur. She spoke to me about how important it was for her clients to have equality within the services that are provided to them. We know, of course, that we are in a mental health crisis and that every bit of assistance helps in that regard. That is one piece of legislation that the official opposition has filibustered at the committee.

There are, of course, amendments to the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia accord act that we need to get through. There is the foreign interference act, which is of course becoming more and more important as we move through this parliamentary session.

I do not know how many times New Democrats have to talk about how incredibly important pharmacare is. We certainly know that the official opposition does not believe that. I think about the millions of Canadians who rely upon that piece of legislation to help them afford the medications they need, diabetics in this country, and I believe there are 3.7 million of them, who need the legislation to go through so they would not have to worry about the cost of their diabetes medications and devices. So many constituents have written to me thanking me for moving that forward.

Those are the key pieces of law that we need to get moving in the House. Yes, we are sitting until midnight most nights to do that. New Democrats believe in that absolutely because it is for people that it is important. There is an opposition party determined to delay every single one of the bills. Time again, the Conservatives have obfuscated, filibustered, screamed and yelled in outrage and then attempted to delay and stall all of that progress, all of those supports. I find it unacceptable.

The fact is that what the Conservatives are now calling out, in terms of their outrage, is that the Speaker seems to have been caught up in supposed partisan activity that clearly was not of his doing. He did everything he was supposed to do, ran through the permissions that he was supposed to get, and yet mistakes were made. The partisanship that the Conservatives are so outraged about actually fuels their own partisanship fire of trying to find yet some other thing that they can hold on to, so much so that it will delay again all of the incredible supports that we need to get to people.

I see this every day, whether I am at the procedure and House affairs committee or here in the House. The Conservatives are desperate to cling on to anything they can, and destroy whatever we are trying to do in the process, to show that this place does not work, because that fits into their communication strategy. I am sorry, but I am not going to allow something to fit into their communication strategy to disrupt what needs to happen for my constituents.

The member across the way for Winnipeg North did quote the letter, but I want to mention it again. We are here, in this case, over a tweet that was sent out by the Liberal Party without having consulted the Speaker. The letter is very clear. It is from the national director of the Liberal Party, apologizing very clearly to the Speaker. It states, “The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally apologizes to you for this mistake, and we take full responsibility.”

Was there a mistake made? Absolutely. Is it horribly unfortunate? Absolutely. Are we punishing the right person in this instance? No. Should there be more vigilance on this issue? Absolutely, of course. However, calling for the Speaker's resignation is clawing to the communication strategy that benefits one group. It does not benefit the entire House. I do not agree with that. We on this side of the House do not agree with that.

We have to work on the legislation that the people have sent us to work on. We have a very important job, and I have no time for all of the bickering and squabbling. Canadians need this place to work. They need us to get to work. We can make this all about ourselves or we can make it about them. Canadians deserve that. New Democrats want to help deliver the supports they need. The work is urgent, and the official opposition just wants to delay. That is all I have to say on this matter.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very thoughtful question. Of course, our number-one priority is to protect Canadians and to make sure they have all the necessary medications available to them. That is why we are actually bringing in pharmacare legislation, Bill C-64. I really hope the member opposite will support that bill because it would allow Canadians to have access to, initially, diabetes medications and contraceptives.

In relation to the particular medication the member is speaking of, I look forward to looking into it and working with him so that I can give him a more precise answer on the approval process for that particular medication.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member who just finished his speech. I would like to say at the outset that the number of Quebeckers already registered for the NDP's dental care program is in the hundreds of thousands. We also know that thousands of Quebeckers are getting their NDP dental care card every week. I think that is extremely important.

Pharmacare is another topic of discussion. All of the major unions in Quebec say that they view the NDP's pharmacare bill, Bill C‑64, in a very positive light. It is important to mention these two things. The NDP is the one proposing measures in the House to improve the daily lives of people across Canada. That is extremely important.

We are supportive of the fall economic statement, Bill C-59. I will talk about some of the measures the NDP has inserted into it, but I will start by saying that this is not an NDP budget.

Of all the governments in the country, the two most popular are the government of British Columbia and the government of Manitoba, and they are two NDP governments. They have both been very effective. The Manitoba NDP government is new, but it is extraordinarily popular. This is because the NDP really knows that the essence of good stewardship, of managing a democratic government, is ensuring that it is not the rich who are taken care of but, rather, regular folks. We have formed government provincially, of course, in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. All those governments have been governments that have made a difference in the lives of people.

The simple reason the two most popular governments in the country right now are NDP governments is the financial statements that are issued by the federal ministry of finance. As members well know, the federal ministry of finance is not a hotbed of social democrats or democratic socialists, but it does publish the fiscal period returns. If members look through them, and I hope they do before the end of the evening, they will see that, over the last 40 years, the best governments, in terms of managing money, paying down debt, expanding education services, expanding housing services and expanding health care systems have been, systematically, over the last 40 years, NDP governments. That is why the two most popular governments in the country right now are NDP governments. It is because the NDP is not beholden to lobbyists.

The corporate Conservatives are run by lobbyists. Their national executive is run by lobbyists. There are lobbyists permeating the Conservative headquarters. The Conservative caucus and the campaign team are all lobbyists for the corporate sector. When the Conservatives were in government we could see how badly they performed. They do not understand the issue of stewardship. The infamous Harper tax haven treaties have bled over $30 billion, each and every year over the last 17 years, out of this country. That is $30 billion that could have been used for health care and housing. It could have been used for a variety of services for veterans, seniors and youth. It could have lowered post-secondary education costs. It could have made a big difference, but that was not what the Conservatives chose to do.

The Liberals, when they came to power, kept many of the tax breaks that had been given to the richest of Canadians, the wealthiest of Canadians, who have never paid their fair share, and the most profitable corporations. The NDP's approach is different, which is why the fiscal period returns to the federal ministry of finance show conclusively that the NDP and NDP governments are the best at managing money.

This is not an NDP budget, by any means. There are elements that the NDP forced into the budget that would make a difference in the lives of working people. The reason we are supporting it is the amendments we have achieved, in the same way that we brought dental care to Canadians. There are two million who have signed up already, including 100,000 seniors. There are many who are, for the first time in their lives, getting access to dental care, and this is just in the first two weeks of this new NDP program. NDP dental care is making a difference.

Earlier tonight, we moved the pharmacare bill to the health committee, which is where it should go. I am looking forward to those hearings over the next couple of days. People have been waiting for decades to have pharmacare added to our health care program and our health care strength in this country.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall in this House, as I am sure you have a great depth of historical memory, that 60 years ago in this House of Commons, just a few feet from this temporary house in the West Block, in Centre Block, Tommy Douglas, as the founding leader of the NDP, brought forward universal health care, which was viciously fought against by Conservatives at the time, who did not want to see people getting health care. However, it was a minority Parliament and Tommy Douglas was able to successfully deliver universal health care to Canadians.

Tommy Douglas always thought that we needed to make sure that health care was available from the tip of our heads right to the soles of our feet. He always envisaged that we would move to pharmacare, that we would move to dental care and that Canadians would have access to the full range of health care services that all other countries with universal health care enjoyed. Fortunately, we have the member for Burnaby South as our leader who feels the same way, and this has been a hallmark of NDP leaders over the decades. Every time there has been a minority Parliament, the NDP has stepped up as the worker bees of Parliament, as the adults in the room. We have gotten things done that have made a difference for Canadians, from universal health care to a whole range of other things like the Canada pension plan, employment insurance and all those things that make a difference in people's lives. All of them come thanks to the NDP, because that is our role in Parliament.

Therefore, when we look at the fall economic statement, we can see already that NDP stamp that makes a difference, but unlike the corporate Conservatives and the lobbyist Liberals, we do not believe in spending enormous amounts of money on the wealthy, on the pampered and on big corporations. We do not believe in funding massively the corporate sector. We believe in negotiating with the corporate sector. The reason we are pressing so hard for pharmacare is that countries that have universal pharmacare are able to have the bulk-purchasing negotiating power that forces down the price of drugs. New Zealand is a great example, where there is a reduction of 90% in the cost of certain medications because the New Zealand government was able to say to the pharmaceutical companies that if they wanted to come into that market, they would have to pay New Zealand's price. Currently, with the patchwork of plans that the corporate Conservatives and the lobbyist Liberals have put into place over decades, it is the pharmaceutical company executives who decide what the prices are, and that has to change.

The fall economic statement does contain some measures that we believe would make a difference. First off, we believe firmly in starting to adjust a taxation system that has become profoundly unjust and unequal. We have said that when we look at the infamous Harper tax haven treaties that cost us $30 billion a year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and we look at the range of other loopholes that exist, it is important to take steps to ensure that those loopholes are closed. The real taxation rate for Canada's largest corporations is single digits because of the loopholes. Because of the corporate executives' ability to write off and because of their ability to take money overseas where they do not have to pay taxes on it, their real taxation rate is in the single digits, less than 10%.

Why not ask Canadians what their taxation rate is? Middle-class Canadians pay their taxes expecting that they will get services and supports in return, but instead, under the Harper regime, we saw that the Conservatives slashed services to those taxpayers who had paid money into the federal government and they gave that money away. They gave it to tax havens. They gave it to the banks. Unbelievably, the Harper regime gave $160 billion to the banking sector so that the banks could prop up executive bonuses and corporate dividends.

The Conservatives have never apologized for that, and Liberals have never apologized for the $750 billion, again, in liquidity supports that they offered to the banking sector just a few years ago. It took 96 hours to provide $750 billion in liquidity supports. Between the two, the corporate coalition of Liberals and Conservatives, over the past 15 years, has given, unbelievably, in current dollars, over a trillion dollars in liquidity supports to the banking sector to prop up dividends and profits and executive bonuses.

We look at the health care problems that we are experiencing, the housing crisis and other problems that exist. We had, today, the member for Nunavut, who is an extraordinary member of Parliament, asking about day care that is not being adequately funded in Iqaluit, yet for Liberals and Conservatives, between them, giving a trillion dollars to the banking sector is no problem.

We can look at the tax havens over the last 15 years. That is half a trillion dollars. That is $30 billion a pop, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, given away to overseas tax havens without a penny of return to Canadians, yet we look at people with disabilities. Half of those who have to go to food banks to make ends meet, half of those who are sleeping outside in the parks and main streets of our country, are people with disabilities. They are not getting what they need in terms of support, but between Liberals and Conservatives, the corporate coalition, for 15 years, half a trillion dollars went to offshore tax havens.

We can look at oil and gas CEOs. Between both the Harper Conservatives and the current Liberal government, over the last 15 years, we have seen $100 billion given to oil and gas CEOs. There is a ton of money that goes to the wrong places in this country. That is why NDP MPs are here fighting on behalf of Canadians, delivering on pharmacare and affordable housing, finally. We had to push the Liberals hard on that over the last couple of years.

We are delivering on dental care, anti-scab legislation, a clean energy strategy and all those things, because, as worker bees in Parliament, we believe firmly that the investments need to happen with families and regular people right across this country, not the rich and the pampered. That is where the corporate Conservatives love to spend tons of money. That is where we have seen, sadly, the Liberal government spend tons of money. We believe that money needs to go to regular people.

When we look at this fall economic statement, there is a first step. Again, the NDP pushed hard for that. We finally will get an annual tax of 3% on types of digital services. This is earned by larger companies with more than $1.1 billion in revenue. This is an important step that we support. Again, is this an NDP budget? No. Does it take an important first step? Yes, it does.

As for the investments in housing, the apartment construction loan program, $15 billion, and the affordable housing fund over the next three years for non-profit and co-op and social housing, we support those as well. In fact, the member for Vancouver East fought hard and so did the member for Nunavut, to make a difference in terms of housing.

I do need to mention the anti-scab legislation for a moment and the work of my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who did a remarkable job in making sure that, finally, replacement workers will be banned at the federal level, and Parliament will be called upon to get a final vote on that in the coming weeks. This is vitally important.

The NDP MPs work as a team. Our leader is the member from Burnaby South. We have made an enormous difference in this Parliament. We made an enormous difference in the last Parliament. We will recall, at the height of the COVID crisis, that it was the NDP that was pushing the government, fortunately in a Parliament where I think it is fair to say that all parties did work together, to invest more than $40 billion to ensure that people, families, people with disabilities, seniors and students were taken care of. Small businesses actually had the wherewithal to keep that shingle out as part of their small business by some rent relief.

All of those things came as a result of the NDP fighting hard on behalf of people. There have been two consecutive minority Parliaments where the NDP has made a difference.

Let me get to the crux of what is in Bill C-59 that we can support. The amendments that were brought originally by the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP, would finally enhance the Competition Bureau. This is fundamentally important. We have had no consumer protection in this country. The corporate sector, the lobbyists, have really been paramount. We have seen, over the decades, how successive Liberal and Conservative governments have refused to do anything to enhance consumer protection.

The member for Burnaby South, the national leader of the NDP, brought forward enhancements to the Competition Act that would ensure that we can crack down on food price gouging and gas price gouging that we are seeing. It has happened with impunity because the Competition Bureau has not had the tools to take action against it. Members will recall that the member for Burnaby South tabled a bill in this regard. The NDP fought hard. We negotiated hard. We did our work as the worker bees in Parliament.

As a result of that, many of the enhancements to the Competition Act are now in this legislation. This is important because despite the protestations of the member for Carleton, who tries to pretend that putting a price on pollution has led to the difficulties and challenges around the rise in food prices, we know that most Canadians understand, unlike the member for Carleton, that it is actually food price gouging that has taken place. We are seeing massive profits in the grocery industry. We are seeing record CEO bonuses.

We have a Conservative Party that is absolutely inundated with lobbyists. Lobbyists run its national party and run its campaign team. This is no surprise because of all the corporate Conservatives have done. Their past track record is giving massive amounts of money to the corporate sector, without ever asking for anything in return. It is like they are not even trying to get any benefits for Canadians. They just hand it out. There were the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, $30 billion each and every year handed over to the wealthiest of Canadians in the corporate sector, and they never asked for a thing in return.

The role the NDP plays in Parliament is so important because the Competition Act amendments that we brought in would mean that we could start cracking down on the egregious food price gouging Canadians are experiencing when they go to the grocery store, and gas price gouging. Just a few weeks ago, my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni signalled this. I know my colleagues in British Columbia, like my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay, can attest to this. The prices in British Columbia all of a sudden skyrocketed by 30¢ a litre. There was no explanation because the companies can do that now. They can do gas price gouging.

The companies do this when we have peak season in terms of travel in British Columbia. It is a beautiful province. We like to get around in British Columbia. The gas companies can gouge with impunity because the Conservatives have allowed them to do this and the Liberals have allowed them to do this. Finally, with these enhancements, the Competition Bureau and the Competition Act would be able to crack down on this gas price gouging that has inflicted so much pain on British Columbians and Canadians right across this country.

These are two important elements that are part of this bill, and it is why we are supporting it.

I wanted to give a shout-out to my colleague from London—Fanshawe. She presented a private member's bill waiving the GST on counselling and psychotherapy. The NDP has also put that into this bill. That would make a difference for all those who need counselling and psychotherapy. Those who have experience with mental illness, mental challenges and mental health know how important it is to be able to pay for those services. This is another innovation that would make a difference.

The NDP has achieved a lot to improve the bill, and we will support it.

Consideration of Government Business No. 39

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, just to confirm, now that the motion has passed regarding Motion No. 39, I lose my unlimited time and I now have a 20-minute slot. Therefore, I will have to share my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester, even though I would have enjoyed continuing to speak to an issue that I hold very dear to my heart, which is the approval of drugs for rare diseases in Canada and how patients can get access to them. Those two words actually only appear once in the legislation.

People with a rare disease are some of the most needy patients in Canada. As I said during the debate on Bill C-213 back in 2021, the hardest medication to get in Canada is the one that is not approved and not available because the manufacturer will say that Canada is too complicated, too difficult and it is not worth its time to try to get it onto our market. That is because of all the regulatory hurdles and steps that exist that make it very difficult for patients with rare diseases to get access to the drugs they need.

We saw this with cystic fibrosis drugs for patients who were trying to get access to Trikafta. It took many years from the time when it was available to patients in America to when it was available in Canada, and it was regulatory hurdles that made it much more difficult to do so.

Now that the government has passed this gag order on the gag order, it will direct the Standing Committee on Health on how it will consider the matter.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the debate on May 6, page 23051, where the Minister of Health responded to a question from the member for Berthier—Maskinongé about the timelines and why the Liberals were limiting debate. At the time, the minister said, “ there will be time for the committee to conduct a study.” I would put to members and constituents back home that a potential 10 hours of witness testimony at a committee is insufficient time to consider this pamphlet of a bill that the NDP-Liberal coalition is pretending is pharmacare. I have read the legislation in full, so I will comment on its contents as well.

The minister went on to say, “Yes, it is important to debate. However, there is plenty of time for debate in committee and during the rest of the House process. It is time to get on with it and move forward.” With this programming motion, the Liberals have essentially ordered the MPs on the committee to only consider it for a few more hours and then send it back here. In fact, after this bill has passed, there is now only one more day left for amendments to be considered. How can amendments be proposed without hearing from officials and witnesses who might bring forward amendments that would be of value to be considered by parliamentarians on that committee? It seems this is completely backward.

I want to comment on the issue of Conservatives delaying the bill, because this is a favourite talking point now of the Liberals and their colleagues in the NDP. I want the member for New Westminster—Burnaby to pay close attention to this. The bill was tabled on February 29. I would suggest that almost three and a half years into this mandate, this bill was not a priority of the government. Second of all, this bill was considered on April 16, May 6 and May 7, three days of consideration by the House of Commons. There were secret negotiations held between the Minister of Health, because he actually said it on the record, and whichever person on the NDP side who was negotiating so they could cobble together this particular piece of legislation.

I would put to members and my constituents back home, who deeply care about patients with rare diseases like I do, that there is nothing in this particular piece of legislation for them. It is not the job of the House of Commons or members of Parliament to simply ratify a secret deal reached between the Minister of Health and the NDP negotiator or negotiators. Our job is to debate, to bring forward ideas and potential amendments from expert witnesses, stakeholder groups and individuals back in our ridings who deeply care about this issue.

I will also mention that although Quebec has been mentioned several times, there is another province that has said openly it will not participate in this pamphlet of a pharmacare plan. It is Alberta, where I am from. Successive ministers of health have said they will not participate in it. One of the talking points I have heard is that we have a patchwork system right now in Canada. Saying “patchwork” is a way to kind of denigrate the hard work of the public servants in the different provinces in Canada who work for these public insurance plans. They are all over.

In fact, in Alberta, Blue Cross is available to anyone who wants it. There are lots of different public insurance plans. There are lots of public servants who work for them, and they work very hard to make sure they cover as many Albertans as possible. My province has said no and Quebec has said no, so we still have a patchwork. Even if this bill passes, even if it were to follow through on all the principles, the highfalutin language that I hear from the Liberals and the NDP on this, there will still be a patchwork in this country. We cannot force a province to participate.

As clause 6 of the pharmacare legislation clearly states, nobody's medication will be paid for. There are separate agreements that would have to be reached with each province. It says very clearly in subclause 6(1) of the pharmacare legislation, “in order to increase any existing public pharmacare coverage”. That would suggest that every single province has to either create or drastically expand a plan or successive series of plans that are single-payer, because that is one of the principles referred to again in that section.

If a province does not do that, it cannot negotiate a deal for future medication to be covered. No medication will get covered for either diabetes or contraceptives when this legislation passes. There will be none because no agreements have been signed yet. Alberta has said no, Quebec has said no, but the patchwork will continue.

I will move on to the legislation as I do want to mention this. Like I said before in a prior debate, there is a Yiddish proverb I used after listening to the minister's speech when he introduced Motion No. 39. He seems to think that pearls flow from his mouth because when I compared his speech at second reading on pharmacare, Bill C-64, and his speech on Motion No. 39, they were almost identical.

The minister actually used the exact same three anecdotes to make the case for why this plan is necessary. In the summary of the legislation, when the contents are reviewed, it gets into a lot of areas of provincial jurisdiction. This should be exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is starting to interfere with how the provinces manage their public health care plans.

I will mention here that nobody with a rare disease will be covered by this piece of legislation. Nobody will be covered, whether someone has phenylketonuria, PKU, whether someone has cystinosis and needs Cystagon, or whether someone has MS, which is, I would say, the most common rare disease in Canada. None of their medication will be covered. If someone's kids have a rare disease, or a family like mine has Alport's syndrome, none of their medication will be covered by this piece of legislation.

The “Funding commitment” in clause 5 reads, “beginning with those for rare diseases. The funding for provinces and territories must be provided primarily through agreements with their respective governments. Then it goes on to talk about “payments” in clause 6 and completely contradicts clause 5 because it says, “for specific prescription drugs and related products intended for contraception or the treatment of diabetes.” In fact, there will be no payment plan for anything else. There cannot be because this legislation will not do any of those things. Nobody with a rare disease will be covered once this legislation passes.

I have been, I hope, consistent in this place about rare disease patients for the past nine years. That is the focus of my opposition to national pharmacare because it will not help them. Like I said, the hardest medications to get in Canada are the ones that are not approved in Canada. All the changes the government has done to the Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technologies in Health, CADTH, as well as all of the changes made to the Canadian Drug Agency, the PMPRB and the PCPA have been repetitive. The same mistakes are being repeated here.

The government says it is going to do bulk buying. Bulk buying is already done. It is done by the provinces through the PCPA. The government has an agreement for generics as well, which are not covered in this particular piece of legislation. There is no direct reference to generics. There is no direct reference to patented medication. It does not talk about those things. It takes years to get those drugs approved in Canada.

I would put to members and my constituents back home, who have emailed me because they are all so worried about this, that this is a pamphlet of legislation. The substance will be in the agreements that may come in the future. There are already two provinces that have backed out and other provinces are considering doing the same. Why is it that, since 2019, when the government announced it was going to fund drugs for rare diseases at $1.5 billion, it has done nothing? Not a single medication prescription has been filled for anyone I know with a rare disease in Canada. That money is just sitting there. The government has only started to put out RFPs to consider creating registries for rare disease patients. Registries, not medication. Most of the money remains unspent. The government has not done anything. That is the same thing that will happen here: a series of broken promises, unkept promises. The Liberals are being helped by the NDP to do this, giving people false hope.

I tell people who enter my office that the last thing I want to do is give false hope. I have two serious rare diseases in my family. Families who have rare diseases like mine cannot wait for the government to get its act together again.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Mr. Speaker, I am all in favour of the purpose of Bill C‑64, but I take issue with rushing through the work, because we must participate in the debates.

I really wish we had time. I understand the pressure, as things in this place seem to face so many obstacles. The concern of the government is that things will get bogged down

As the leader of the Green Party, we have been, in every platform for I cannot remember how many elections, calling for a universal single-payer pharmacare that actually means that Canada will properly be a country with universal health care. We are the only country in the world that has a nationalized health care system that does not provide for universal pharmacare.

The big pharma industry in this country, and globally, makes indecent levels of profits over drugs that it has not had to put investment in for research. There are a lot of issues to discuss with pharmacare. The Hoskins report scratched the surface of the ways we could, in this country, save billions of dollars for our health care system, but not with a piecemeal approach. I very much fear the piecemeal approach to what I support: absolutely, diabetes medications, absolutely, contraception available for free. However, I fear that we may be setting up a system where, because we do not see savings, we may even see an increase in costs.

Universal, single-payer pharmacare would save our health care system billions of dollars a year, and this is not it, not yet. I want to support getting the bill through, but I really object to seeing a constant loss of our opportunity to thoroughly debate issues because of the need to bring down le bâillon, toujours la guillotine.

Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to what the health minister was saying, so I am glad to be the first person to rise on my side to maybe provide a rebuttal and also to reset the debate, because the debate is not directly about Bill C-64; it is about a programming motion.

When I listened to the minister's speech, I also had the time to compare it to his speech that he gave at second reading. The same three anecdotes he raised today were raised then. Two of the three are completely misleading, and one was a very personal experience of his that he raised, which is his right as a member and a minister.

However, this is about a programming motion that would guillotine debate in the House. It would order a committee of the House to basically consider a bill within 10 hours, a bill that would have profound impact on the structure of Canada's health care systems, plural because they are systems. Quebec has a different system than Alberta, than British Columbia, than Saskatchewan and than other provinces in Canada.

We know from much research that has already been done by CIHI, The Conference Board of Canada, Statistics Canada, and CLHIA, which is the life insurance trade association, that 97.2% of Canadians already have access or are eligible for access to an insurance benefit plan of some sort. I know that in my home province, we have Blue Cross, which is usually the insurer of last resort that provides a lot of the services that the minister talked about.

The worst part of all is that we would be programming a committee of the House to study what essentially amounts to a pamphlet of legislation. The minister talked about finding common ground and solutions. I have also heard other members of Parliament talk about how important committee work is to them. Now we would basically be guillotining and gag ordering a specific committee of the House, the Standing Committee on Health, to do its work in 10 hours.

That is why I asked a question for the health minister on why he felt the need to exclude himself from having to come to testify before the health committee. One would think that he would put himself before the members at committee and answer all of their questions on the reasoning behind C-64 and the wisdom of it, because it is not a national pharmacare plan. That is not what it would do. It would cover two very small areas of medicine.

I will note that in the minister's second reading speech about Bill C-64, he had all of one sentence devoted to rare disease drugs and rare disease patients, typically the source of the most expensive therapies, the most expensive drugs, on an individual basis, not on a broad basis. Typically most drug plans in the provinces, whether private or public, spend the most on things like the very basic medication for infections. Medications like amoxicillin or penicillin and variations thereof are the ones that are quite expensive because people get a lot of infections, so it it just a question of volume in those situations.

There is a lot of medication out there that is expensive because it is brand new; it is coming onto the market for the first time. Recently I learned about a new oncology drug that is going to be made available in the United States, but it is cutting-edge, specialized medicine made for the individual patient. The drug comes with a few tens of thousands of dollars of cost associated with its delivery. There will be some cancer centres in Canada that will not be able to have it available for patients, but it will be available to other patients in other parts of Canada. Oncology drugs would not be covered under the plan.

There would actually be nothing covered in the plan except for those two areas of medications, which are very specific ones as well. Like I said, there would be nothing for rare disease patients. The minister talked, in his original speech at second reading, though not today, about the $1.5 billion being devoted to rare disease drugs. That announcement was made in 2019, yet only now has some of the spending gone out, not to cover drug costs but to cover things like the creation of rare disease registries to get foundations, universities and private organizations to start up a rare disease registry specific to one individual drug.

There is often a problem in how the Liberals propose things. They say something, make claims, and then it takes years before anything actually happens. As an example, in 2019 there was an announcement. In 2024, still not a single rare disease drug has been covered by the $1.5 billion. It took five years of waiting. Rare disease patients cannot wait. In fact it was the Liberal government that cancelled the original rare disease strategy in 2016. At that time, the president of the Canadian Organizations for Rare Disorders, Durhane Wong-Rieger, said that it was the kiss of death for patients with rare diseases.

She is a literal ball of energy and an amazing woman, an amazing advocate for patients with rare diseases. This was in 2016. It took the government three years just to announce funding and five years after that to roll out a single dollar. Now the government wants to convince us that it needs to expedite Bill C-64 by programming and ordering the Standing Committee on Health to consider certain things but not others.

I will go through the programming motion, since the minister did not feel the need to even explain why this was necessary. He repeated, essentially, his second reading speech on why we need to expedite this so quickly. There were three days of debate in the House before there was a vote at the Senate and in the Standing Committee on Health. I looked at the work the Standing Committee on Health had done. It did not even have the chance to consider the bill. That is how quickly the government is now programming what is going on.

The first line of this programming motion is very simple: “the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for the committee meetings”. It seems quite reasonable that it would be given first right to interpretation, rooms and catering services if the committee is expected to sit for hours and hours on end. I guess a programming motion would have to have that in it.

The second part is, “the committee shall meet between 3:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on the two further sitting days following the adoption of this order to gather evidence from witnesses, provided that any meeting on a Friday may start at 12:00 p.m. for a duration of not more than five hours”. Essentially, that is saying there will be two more meetings of the Standing Committee on Health and 10 hours of testimony. There are countless members in the House who will say that, during consideration of a bill, witnesses will testify, explain an idea or perhaps a missing amendment or particular line in a bill between the French and the English, which happens on a fairly regular basis. They either do not match, do not make sense or there could be more added to a bill to clarify or constrain a bill. Ten hours is simply not enough for a bill that would have such a substantive impact.

According to the health minister, the Liberals are going to celebrate a bill with such a substantive and profound impact as some great achievement. I do not believe that. I believe this is a pamphlet. This is not national pharmacare. There is no spending associated with this bill. Every one of my constituents back home knows there is no spending associated with this bill. If the Liberals keep ramming the bill through at this pace and it passes through the Senate at some point in the future, not one single drug will be paid for through this legislation because there are no dollars associated with it. There is no, what we call, ministerial warrant from the Minister of Finance connected to this bill. There will be no medication paid for through this particular bill. That is why I do not understand why this programming motion is of such necessity when the committee has not even had a chance to consider it.

I understand perhaps it would be easier to tell Conservatives, members of the Bloc and independent members that they are slowing down the committee's work, that they are not allowing the committee to proceed with witness testimony or consider the contents of the bill, but that has not even happened yet. We have not even had a chance to invite witnesses to explain to us their views on the contents of the bill.

When the minister talks about finding common ground and solutions, he accuses the Conservatives of being against it. Of course we are against it. We voted against the bill, but that doesn't mean we cannot improve an F product and make it maybe an F+ product. I know that is not a grade in universities or colleges in Canada, but we can always make something terrible a little less terrible. This is essentially, like I said, a pamphlet. For me, it was easier to vote against it because I saw nothing for patients with rare diseases. That is not a surprise to anyone in this place.

I remember the original debate on an NDP private member's bill, which I believe was Bill C-340, if memory serves. It was on national pharmacare. At least the title was on national pharmacare, not the contents. It was put forward by the member for Vancouver Kingsway. He and I debated it for most of the day. I was all about access for patients with rare diseases, and I said that was why I could not vote for that bill at the time.

It is not a big surprise to many members of the House and members of the other place that I would be against a bill that has has a title of national pharmacare, but would not do anything for patients with rare diseases. Members know of a personal anecdote I have mentioned many times in the House. I have three living kids with a rare disease called Alport syndrome. One daughter passed away very young, at 39 days old, with a different rare disease. I always joke with my friends in the rare disease community that I am due. I should probably play the lottery as I would I have a decent chance of winning because both of those conditions are rare.

In the case of my living kids, it is a rare disease of the kidneys, CKD, a chronic kidney condition. In the case of my youngest daughter who passed away, she had Patau syndrome, which is a chromosomal condition and very, very rare.

If one knows a child with Down syndrome, one should hug them. They are very special little kids. My daughter had a condition that is considered much worse than Down's. Down's is survivable. There are a lot of very sweet kids who live with Down syndrome, and their families are made incredibly happy by them because they are sweet into the teen years, into their twenties, thirties and forties. One never has to go through those teenage years, as I am going through right now with one of my kids, where suddenly, as the dad, I know nothing and they know everything, which is okay. I will go through this three times in my life.

I will move on to the next part of the programming motion, which reads, “all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 4:00 p.m. on the second sitting day following the adoption of this order”.

We are quite fortunate there was unlimited time provided, I believe, for the first two speakers on a programming motion. Perhaps members are surprised I would rise on this, but I intend to use this time to explain why I do not like the programming motion and the defects with Bill C-64, and to remind the minister about what the summary of his own legislation says that it does, because it is the complete opposite of what the minister just explained to the House. It is the complete opposite from his second reading speech as well, so members can stay tuned for that part.

On these amendments, we are fortunate because we have a constituency week coming up. I can guarantee many of us will be sitting down and working with patient advocacy groups. We will be going to our stakeholder groups and meeting with our constituents. I have a few who have emailed me on this subject. I will be finding useful amendments to this bill that would improve it in my eyes and in the eyes of my constituents. We have the time.

Had we had a sitting week coming up, had there not been unlimited time for the first speaker on the official opposition side, we could have been rushed to provide amendments by 4 p.m. after the first day. That is an incredibly low amount of time considering this first came to the House February 29 and then the last vote was on April 16 before it was sent to the committee.

Doing a programming motion like this, or a gag order to the committee, is wrong. I do not agree with programming motions. I believe I voted against nearly all of them that ever came through the House. I believe the health minister was also the House leader at one point when Motion No. 16 was being moved through the House. There was also a previous one, and I believe it was a member for Waterloo who moved Motion No. 6, which would have programmed how committees work in the Standing Orders forevermore for the Houses.

I cannot base our opposition or our support for any particular motions and programming motions on good faith coming from that side because I simply do not believe the cabinet, the front-benchers. I do not believe them. There are many good-hearted backbenchers in the Liberal benches. They are easier to work with, I find, than those on the front bench. The front bench I just do not trust. I do not trust the front-benchers to do the right thing for Canadians. In fact, Canadians do not trust them. If we look at the polls, there is about a 20-point disparity, depending on which poll we consider, between what the government is polling at and what the official opposition is polling at.

I will move on to the next point, which reads, “amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by clause consideration of the bill”. I actually do not have a problem with that. Independent members should be treated like every other member of the House, especially during considerations of bills.

Now comes the next one, which gets gets quite technical:

the committee shall meet at 3:30 p.m., on the third sitting day following the adoption of this order to consider the bill at clause-by-clause, or 12:00 p.m. if on a Friday, and if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 8:30 p.m., or 5:00 p.m. if on a Friday, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses, amendments submitted to the committee as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill...

This means that, once the 10 hours of testimony are done, once that particular portion of the committee's work is done, every single amendment has to be voted on immediately, with no debate for amendments. In those 10 hours, if witness testimony takes five or six or seven hours, we then have a few hours left over to consider and debate amendments. We could not even persuade the other side of the wisdom of the amendment. This is so profoundly wrong. I see this programming motion all the time when it comes to omnibus budget bills.

I will remind the House that the Liberal platforms in 2015 and 2019 promised not to do omnibus budget bills, yet they have done them repeatedly, over and over again. In fact, in Liberal budget 2023, they had section changes to clauses 500 to 504 on natural health products. That has nothing to do with the budget. There are no spending items related to it, but it was a regulatory expansion to apply rules for pharmaceuticals directly onto natural health products.

It caught a lot of people by surprise, including myself, that in a budget bill, which sometimes has hundreds of pages, one would do such a thing. They basically clip what they usually do at the finance committee, and now they have dropped it and ordered the Standing Committee on Health to do it in one particular way, in their way, their preferred way, with no debate on any amendments.

Why should one allow backbenchers from any of our political parties to freely consider the judgment and the argument being made by another member of another political party, individually or on behalf of their political movement, on the wisdom of a particular amendment to a government bill? I know, it would be shocking to even have that consideration.

It would be even more shocking for some members of the government benches to know that I have voted for government amendments at committee. I know. I hear “shame” from my side of the benches, but it happens. Sometimes they have a good idea. I am willing to consider good ideas. I am willing to. I have been on several committees over my time, from foreign affairs to finance to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I am on the immigration committee and the Canada-China committee now, the select committee. I will vote for reasonable amendments. I will even talk to my own side to try to convince them if there is a reasonable, logical amendment that makes sense. Sometimes there is an argument made by a member of another party that actually makes sense. This section prevents that. There will be no debate on amendments. One is just supposed to vote on them.

Of course, what will happen is that there will be a question of having a recorded division on every single one of those votes. This means the committee will continue, likely, late into an evening, because it is basically programmed. To demonstrate that this is wrong and should not be done, I am fairly sure that there will be members of the committee who will want a recorded division on every single item so that we can go back to it later with our errors and mistakes and illogical situations that arise because two sections perhaps conflict with each other. This type of amendment process, clause by clause, is incredibly important, and we now will not be allowed to be given this opportunity.

The sixth portion of this guillotine gag order on the Standing Committee on Health says:

a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and if the House stands adjourned, the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House during the previous sitting for the purpose of Standing Order 76.1(1)

This is a fairly reasonable amendment that is often provided by members in other committees to make sure that, when reporting on a bill, the House leaders are informed, typically to go on the Notice Paper. I do not have a direct issue with this particular portion, apart from the fact that this is a programming motion, a gag order, that is going to guillotine a committee of the House without that committee even having had the chance to consider a bill.

The next section is section (b). It says:

not more than five hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage, and at the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of the said stage of the bill, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred...

It continues. There is another one, but I am going to stop right here. This essentially means that, when amendments come back from committee, they are sometimes ruled out of order. They cannot be considered at committee but they can be considered by the House because the House has control of its committees, and the House can decide whether certain amendments can be voted on. Those are typically then submitted to the Speaker.

This essentially says that this process will also be guillotined after five hours. I know they love gag orders. I know they love to guillotine debate. My hope is, too, that during this debate on the programming motion, they do not gag order the gag order. I would hate to see that. It would be like a double gagging of the orders of the House and really limiting debate.

They have done it before. They have done it on Bill C-7 and Bill C-14, the two medical assistance in dying bills. At different stages of those bill, they both programmed and then shut down debate on them. I have seen, plenty of times, allocation motions being moved by cabinet to force bills through the process on matters of conscience.

It is not as if they are technical bills where perhaps there is timeline the Liberals need to reach and where, for the proper administration of government, they can perhaps make an argument they can stand on, but for matters of conscience, to guillotine debate is wrong. In this particular case, I would say that this is not a matter of conscience. I think this is about administration of government services and what the contents of the bill are actually about versus what they are not about. When the Liberals impose a guillotine with time allocation and force the closure of debate, the major disadvantage to Canadians is that they cannot prepare themselves. They cannot organize themselves when they are opposed to particular ideas and when they want to ask questions like, “Why is my rare disease, my health condition or MS not covered in this bill? Why is diabetes covered?”

I know a lot of diabetics, and I am not picking on them directly. I am just asking a simple question. The most common rare disease is multiple sclerosis, or MS. A lot of people in my family have it, as well as friends, colleagues and co-workers. There are spouses of members on this side who have it. Therefore, why is that particular condition, and its medication, which is expensive medication, not in this particular piece of legislation?

It is a choice the government made, so why can we not debate that choice the government has made for those two particular conditions and the medications associated with them? If they are being covered, why not others? There are so many other types of medications, such as the most common ones: penicillin, amoxicillin and all the variations of the “-cillins”, because there are so many of them. Why are they not covered in this particular piece of legislation?

On this programming motion, should we put forward such an amendment to be considered at committee? If it is deemed non-votable at committee, why can it not be considered at report stage?

I guess I will only get through the programming motions, and I will have to come back later to finish talking about Bill C-64 and some of the things the minister said, as well as my concerns with the PMPRB, CADTH, pCPA and the entire architecture of drug approval in Canada.

The motion reads, “not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at the third reading stage, and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders”, and it goes on like that, which basically means that there will be one day for final speeches, and then it will be done and sent to the other place. It is wrong to ram through a bill in this method, with bad faith being shown by the health minister, claiming that we were opposing it and not willing to consider things, when he has never bothered to listen.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, through you to the Conservatives, they are against this bill and against providing contraceptive and diabetes medications. That is fair. They can be against it, but the House has an elected will. What we saw on the very first day that we attempted to put this bill before the House was obstruction and what we have seen with other bills is obstruction, not obstruction to continue a conversation, but obstruction because they do not want it.

I do not know how long we could have a debate about whether or not we should do it. What is the value of that debate to public discourse? We could talk about it until the cows come home, but Conservatives are against it. There is going to be an opportunity obviously at committee, at third reading and at report stage to have a lot more debate on the bill, Bill C-64, and to hear their single position, which is in opposition.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the health minister's speech. He talked about, at one point, finding common ground and finding solutions. He recited every single anecdote in this speech that he did in his second reading speech on the bill.

This bill, Bill C-64, only got three days of debate in the House, and it was then sent to committee. Now, we have a programming motion, so it is a guillotine or gag order attempting to be imposed on the House of Commons to order a committee of the House to dispense with the bill after something like 10 hours of consideration at committee. If we are talking about finding common ground and finding solutions, then we should allow the House and its committees to do their work instead of ramming things through.

I wonder if the minister could explain why, in the programming motion, he is not obliged to testify before the committee.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, shall be disposed of as follows:

(a) during the consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Health,

(i) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for the committee meetings,

(ii) the committee shall meet between 3:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on the two further sitting days following the adoption of this order to gather evidence from witnesses, provided that any meeting on a Friday may start at 12:00 p.m. for a duration of not more than five hours,

(iii) all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 4:00 p.m. on the second sitting day following the adoption of this order,

(iv) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(v) the committee shall meet at 3:30 p.m., on the third sitting day following the adoption of this order to consider the bill at clause-by-clause, or 12:00 p.m. if on a Friday, and if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 8:30 p.m., or 5:00 p.m. if on a Friday, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses, amendments submitted to the committee as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill,

(vi) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and if the House stands adjourned, the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House during the previous sitting for the purpose of Standing Order 76.1(1);

(b) not more than five hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage, and at the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of the said stage of the bill, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred; and

(c) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at the third reading stage, and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred. (Government Business No. 39)

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to talk about Bill C-64, which is an opportunity for us to move forward with pharmacare in this country. In the first order, the bill represents the best of what Canadians should expect from the House, which is different parties working together to find common ground and solutions.

I will start by thanking the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his work in what were often challenging conversations and negotiations, but which led to an exceptionally important bill that is going to do incredible good across the country. As well, I want to thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the House leader for the New Democratic Party, for his work as House leader and now as health critic. In all orders, when we are facing something as challenging as the protection of our public health system and making sure Canadians get the care they require, working in a non-partisan way to drive results is exceptionally important.

I will speak to what is at stake, say a bit about what we have been doing in health and then talk specifically to the legislation that is in front of us today.

It was a stark day for me yesterday because I had two very different kinds of conversations. One conversation was with somebody who was saying, in a roundabout way, that maybe it would not be so bad if our public health care system became private. It is important to focus on what that would mean for this country and why it is something that we should all be adamantly opposed to.

If we allow our system to become a private health care system, there would be a migration of dollars toward a private system and expertise, in which the private sector would take that which was easy and lucrative and leave that which was difficult or involved folks who did not have the means to be able to pay for those services. This would leave less money in a public system that would be dealing with the most expensive problems and the most intractable issues. Over time, we would then see more and more migration of that which was easier into the private system, which would mean that people who do not have the means could not afford the same kind of care.

In a very practical sense, that ends up in the following type of situation: I had an opportunity to be in the United States with my partner for a weekend, and we witnessed a man collapse. It was clearly a person with not a lot of means. He fell unconscious to the ground. We went to his side and called 911. When he became conscious, his first thought was not about his health or worrying about what had just happened to his physical body; his concern was how he was going to be able to afford what just happened to him. I thought about the phone call I made to 911 and whether this was what this man even wanted, because now he has to think of exorbitant health costs to get the care he needs.

Even those who do not fundamentally care about whether their fellow citizens, regardless of their financial circumstances, get the same level of care as everybody else in the country, even if we cannot compel people's morality to care about the circumstance of whether somebody in their own community gets the same level of medical care that they do, the reality is that when somebody does not go to a hospital to get checked for something that is minor, because they do not have money, then it becomes something major. We are then left with the existential question, when that person becomes so sick that they are on death's door, of whether we just let them die or whether we pay the exorbitant costs that we have allowed to accumulate through not having a system that took care of those problems in the first place.

For the prognosticators of doom about our health system, for those who push the idea that we should just allow it to deteriorate and not make the investments or say that it is too difficult, they have to be honest about the future they are painting for Canadians in this country and the type of health care system that they would be left with. It is one where only the affluent have the opportunity to get the care they need. We can imagine a world where nurses cannot afford the care and services they require, but the affluent they are serving do. I do not think that is a society we want to be in.

That is why the investments we are making in health care are so critically important. The federal government has come to the table with nearly $200 billion to invest in partnership with provincial and territorial governments over the next 10 years. In the same spirit as the legislation, the question was not asked about one's partisanship or one's jurisdiction, because I do not think Canadians are interested. They want to see answers and forward progress.

I really want to commend the health ministers across the country because, over the last 10 months, as I had an opportunity to work with them to negotiate the agreements we signed, it was a spirit of co-operation and putting the health of Canadians first. It does not matter whether it was Adriana LaGrange in Alberta, Tom Osborne in Newfoundland and Labrador, a Conservative and a Liberal, or Adrian Dix, a New Democratic health minister in B.C.; they understand we have an important job to do and that we need to focus on what unites us and how we make things better.

The results were incredibly detailed health agreements that not only put money into the system but also showed exactly how that federal money is going to be spent. Thus, Canadians can view where those dollars are going to go to improve their health system and issues such as the health workforce, where we make sure that we have the doctors and nurses Canadians need and that everybody has a relationship with a doctor in this country. In addition, this enables us to put common indicators across the country so people can see the progress their province is making.

We know what is measured is achieved, and for the first time in our health system, these agreements put common indicators across the country so we can see the progress occurring in our health system and see what those investments are doing on key indicators identified by CIHI, which is an independent agency dealing with health data.

However, in dealing with the urgency of the now, let us recognize that our health system has been enormously strained. Throughout one of the darkest periods in public health that, certainly, we have known in our lifetime, health care workers were asked to do Herculean amounts of work. They were asked to rise to an occasion and do more than I think any reasonable person could be expected to do, but they met that hour and did it. As in health systems all over the world, instead of being met with a break, they were met with even more work, with burnout, with all kinds of mental fatigue and mental health issues as a result of the pandemic, with a backlog of procedures and with a health system that was even more overwhelmed.

What was remarkable about that period of time, going back to the spirit of co-operation, is that we made extraordinary progress. This was when the health system was fully aligned in the darkest moments of the pandemic, everybody was given more agency to practise at top of scope, jurisdiction was of distant consideration and people's immediate urgent health needs were first. We are dealing with that, with these workforce agreements and the work we are doing bilaterally with provinces and territories, but it is not enough to deal with the crisis of now. We have already made such huge progress. On where we were a year ago versus where we are now, that progress is evident through our whole system, but we recognize we also have to be upstream.

That brings me to another conversation that I had yesterday. I had the opportunity to be with the member for Ottawa—Vanier at a denture clinic in Vanier. Here is another example of parliamentary co-operation, where two parties came together and recognized an essential need in this country, which is that some nine million Canadians do not have access to oral health care.

We have now seen more than 30,000 seniors, just in the first few days of this dental program, receive care for the first time. I have been able to see what that means, in many instances by going into clinics. I will talk about what I saw in that denture clinic in Vanier. A denturist was talking about a senior who had not had their dentures replaced in 40 years; they did not have the money. This senior had no teeth and used a black apparatus to crush food in their mouth. One can imagine the dignity and the spiritual change in that person when they came in and realized that, after 40 years, they were finally going to get teeth in their mouth. The denturist being able to describe that moment, the pride they had in being able to deliver that service and give that senior that dignity, was absolutely extraordinary.

I had an opportunity in my own riding, just a few days before that, in Ajax, to meet with a senior. I never had a chance to meet him before. His name is Wayne. He sometimes goes by “Moose”. He was talking about himself and his wife. He had a need for partial dentures, and he had other oral health problems, as did his wife, which they had been putting off. In terms of what it meant to him to feel seen and to be able to get those issues taken care of, the truth is that we know it is not just a matter of dignity. It is not just a question of what kind of country we want to live in. What about the cost?

I think of Wayne and his inability to pay for the medical care that he needed for oral health care. Left untreated, Wayne could very well end up in a hospital room with an unnecessary surgical procedure, placing his life at risk. Imagine the staggering cost of that.

Dental care is not about some kind of boutique political intervention. It is fundamentally about making sure that people get the preventative care they need. It is part of the overall action that we are taking as a government, not only dealing with the crisis of the now, but also casting our eyes into the future and asking how we can work together.

Clearly the Bloc Québécois members have concerns about the jurisdiction issue, which I completely understand. It is a concern for me too. However, in my opinion, this is not a question of jurisdiction. It is actually a question of co-operation. There was one question that dominated my conversations with Quebec's health minister, Christian Dubé: How can the Government of Canada and the Province of Quebec work together to improve our health care system?

There are plenty of opportunities for us to work together in a spirit of co-operation to improve our health care system. It is easy to pick quarrels, point out differences and raise the issue of jurisdiction. However, I believe that for Quebeckers, what really matters is their health and government action.

Dental care is a great example of that. In Quebec, the Minister of Heritage has done extraordinary work in her riding. Almost all the providers in her riding have signed up, meeting a lot of that misinformation that was coming from the Conservatives with true facts. The experiences of those providers have been extraordinary. That is an example of us working together.

I said to Minister Dubé in Quebec that if they want to administer the program, it is no problem. Our care is about the patients, not about the jurisdiction. Our only requirements, if a one wants to take it over, is that one has to have at least the same level of care, number one, and number two, we are not going to give more to administer the program than it costs us to administer it. If it costs one more, that is something one has to bear on one's shoulders or look internally at how one is operating one's system.

That is an example of making sure that we get the care now and that we fix the question of jurisdiction later. For somebody who has a dental emergency, for a senior who does not have teeth in their mouth, they do not care about jurisdiction. They care about care and about getting it done. That is what we are focused on.

Before I come to pharmacare, one of the other things we are doing is about school food. When I was at Heart and Stroke, I had the opportunity to lead the Ontario mission and to be the national director of children and youth. One thing that was shocking to me was that when a child has one healthy meal, it can totally change their health outcomes. It does it for a couple of reasons. First, just the act of eating fruits and vegetables and healthy food has a transformative effect on health and prevents chronic disease and illness. Second, how does one learn if one is hungry? Third, one actually gets to develop a taste for healthy food that lasts one's entire life. Therefore, this is an extraordinary investment that is going to make a massive difference.

We are also taking action on marketing to kids with front-of-pack labelling and taking action with the $500-million fund to develop capacity for mental health services on the ground in communities across the country. I could go on and on, but I only have a short period of time to talk about the thing that we are here to talk about. I see the member for Vancouver Kingsway, and I want to thank him for this.

When we talk about contraceptives, it is incredibly frustrating to me that, over the last number of days, we have seen a march and a protest here to try to take away women's rights and take away their right to choose. We have seen over 80 Conservative members, I believe is the number, who have been endorsed because of their belief that they should take away a woman's right to choose, and that is fine. I am pro-choice, and there are members who are not.

However, what I do not understand is if someone is against a woman's right to make a choice about her own body, how can they also be against giving her contraception? What choice is she left with? Let us look at that very specifically. If a woman today is in need of contraception and does not have the money for it, what are they supposed to do? Maybe they can find the money for oral contraception, but it has a failure rate of 9%. An IUD has a failure rate of 0.2%, but it costs $500 up front. For the women who do not have the money to pay for it up front, they are left with a less effective tool to be able to have control over their sexual and reproductive health.

How, in the one order, can we say to a woman that they are not allowed to choose or make a choice for their body, but in the other order, say that we are not going to help them get contraception to be able to make a choice about their body that way either? In other words, they get no choice. What conversation is being had about sexual health? If someone is against giving contraception to women and against them having a choice over their body, then they would at least talk about sexual health.

For women, it is extremely important to know that their body is something that they should always have autonomy over. Sex is something that should feel empowering and should make them feel like themselves. It is something they should never be coerced or pressured into. It is something that they should never feel ashamed of. It is something that should feel pleasurable.

Bill C‑64—Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved:

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

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

Foreign Political Interference, Violence or Intimidation

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, (a) the amendment to the motion at second reading for Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, in the name of the MP for Cumberland—Colchester, be deemed withdrawn, and (b) Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare, be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

Bill C‑64—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to contribute to this debate today in support of budget 2024.

The budget aims to make our country fairer for everyone, for all generations. As one of the younger MPs in this place, I have heard countless times from people my age and younger how difficult it is for them to visualize the future they had always imagined for themselves.

Millennials and gen Zs are the first generations who are not doing better than their parents. They grew up with a promise that they can do well in school, work hard, get a good job and live a great life. Today's economy is proving all of that to be difficult. Many did really well in school and have great jobs, yet they are still finding it difficult to make ends meet.

Many of my friends, my age and younger, still live with their parents because they cannot afford to buy their own place. At this point, rent is so expensive that it simply is not worth it. Young Canadians are having a hard time getting approved for a mortgage, and some are requiring their parents to act as guarantors. That is if they are lucky enough to come from a family who is well off enough to provide that signature.

This has to change. The backbone of our economy is our youth. They are our present and our future, and they deserve their hard work to pay off. They deserve at least the same opportunities as their parents and grandparents had in order to achieve a good life.

This is why our government put in place, in the last couple of years, the tax-free first home savings account to make it easier for Canadians to save for their first homes. Up to now, over 750,000 Canadians have opened an account to save money to put into a down payment faster, with the help of tax relief.

Budget 2024 proposes an additional support for Canadians to be able to afford a home faster. First off, we know that for homes to become more affordable we need to increase supply. Budget 2024 would include an additional investment of $15 billion in new loan funding for the apartment construction loan program, bringing the program's total to $55 billion since 2017. This new investment would help build more than 30,000 additional homes across the country.

Budget 2024 would also top up the housing accelerator fund to increase the supply of housing faster. This fund would work with municipalities to cut red tape and to fast-track the creation of at least 100,000 new homes across Canada. The investment in budget in 2024 is $400 million over four years and would help fast-track 12,000 new homes in three years.

Another measure that would be extended for an additional two years is the ban on foreign buyers of Canadian homes. People who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents would continue to be prohibited from buying homes in Canada, as this practice has brought up the value of our homes.

While building new homes is a longer-term solution to bringing down the cost of housing, there are other ways that budget 2024 would aim to help young Canadians buy and keep their first homes. The budget proposes to enhance the Canadian mortgage charter in several ways. It would allow a five-year increase of the amortization period, allowing for a 30-year amortization for first-time homebuyers purchasing newly built homes and making it possible for more young Canadians to qualify for and afford their monthly mortgage payments.

For those who already have a mortgage and whose terms are coming to an end, renewing one's mortgage with today's rates seems quite daunting. However, the Canadian government will be working toward making permanent amortization relief available to protect homeowners who meet specific criteria. Eligible homeowners would be able to reduce their monthly mortgage payment to an amount they can afford for as long as they need to. This would give them an opportunity to stay in their homes for longer.

While housing is one of the most important points in budget 2024, I would like to turn to a few other great supports for Canadians that would be funded in this budget. I will not spend too much time talking about the national school food program because I have already spoken about it at length in this place. I could not be happier that this investment of $1 billion to help kids eat a healthy meal at school has seen the light of day. The only private member's bill I have ever had the opportunity to present in this place, in my time as an MP, was on this very program, because as a teacher, I know just how badly it is needed.

Budget 2024 proposes an investment of $1 billion over five years for the federal government to work with provinces, territories and indigenous partners to expand access to school food programs, with support beginning as early as the new school year. The program is expected to provide meals for more than 400,000 kids each year and is expected to save the average participating family with two children as much as $800 per year in grocery costs, with lower-income families benefiting the most.

Also incredibly important is that the federal government recently introduced legislation that would help make essential medications more accessible and affordable for Canadians, which is a landmark move toward building a national pharmacare program that is comprehensive, inclusive and fiscally sustainable. Bill C-64, the pharmacare act, describes the federal government's intent to work with provinces and territories to provide universal, single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications. Now, budget 2024 proposes to provide $1.5 billion over five years to help Canada support the launch of the national pharmacare program.

We also need more support for persons with disabilities who face significant barriers to financial security, Budget 2024 proposes funding of $6.1 billion over six years and $1.4 billion per ongoing year for a new Canada disability benefit, with payments to eligible Canadians, which would start in July 2025. The Canada disability benefit would establish an important support for persons with disabilities and would ensure a fairer chance for persons with disabilities. It would fill a gap in the federal government's social safety net and is intended to supplement, not to replace, existing provincial and territorial income support measures.

Another aspect I was thrilled to see in budget 2024 is continued mental health support for our young people. The budget proposes an investment of $500 million over five years, beginning in 2024-25, with the goal of reducing wait times and providing more options for youth in need of mental health care. The reason this is so important is that 32% of young people who seek mental health support are unable to access care because of the cost. Whether we are talking about mental health issues brought on by the pandemic or those brought on by the postpandemic economy, gen Z needs that extra help, and the government is here to provide it.

We know that Canada's success, now and tomorrow, depends on the success of its youngest generations, but too many young people feel as though the reward for hard work, which is a secure, prosperous, comfortable middle-class life, is out of reach. For students, even with increases in financial supports, many still need more help to cover rising costs. Budget 2024 announces the government's intention to extend, for an additional year, the increase in full-time Canada student grants from $3,000 to $4,200 per year and interest-free Canada student loans from $210 to $300 per week, in time for the new school year. With this change, Canada's student grants will have doubled in size since 2014.

Grants for part-time students, students with disabilities and students with dependents would also be increased proportionately. Increased grants would support 587,000 students, and increased interest-free loans would support 652,000 students, with a combined $7.3 billion for the upcoming academic year. However, since federal student grants and loans are intended to help cover the cost of shelter, the formula used to estimate students' housing costs has not bee updated since 1998.

Budget 2024 proposes to modernize the shelter allowances used by the Canada student financial assistance program when determining financial need. This new approach would provide additional student aid to approximately 79,000 students each year. The government would also incentivize post-secondary institutions to build more student housing, and would provide the low-cost financing needed so that more students could find an affordable place to call home.

To aid the transition from school to the work world, work-integrated learning opportunities, such as co-ops and internships, are a proven way for post-secondary students to gain the valuable skills, education and real-life experience necessary to get good-paying jobs in important and growing fields.

To create more work-integrated learning opportunities for post-secondary students, budget 2024 proposes to provide $207.6 million for the student work placement program, which has already created over 192,000 work opportunities for post-secondary students since 2017-18. Likewise, the government would invest to create more youth job opportunities to build their skills and to gain meaningful work experience, which will be critical to Canada's economic growth potential in the years to come.

To create 90,000 youth job placements and employment support opportunities, budget 2024 proposes to provide $351.2 million for the youth employment and skills strategy. This includes $200.5 million for Canada summer jobs, including in sectors facing critical labour shortages, and $150.7 million for the youth employment and skills strategy program.

We cannot ignore those younger Canadians who choose to work for themselves and to launch their own businesses, which is an important part of a growing economy. To empower young entrepreneurs, budget 2024 proposes to provide $60 million over five years for Futurpreneur Canada, a national not-for-profit organization that would provide young entrepreneurs with access to financing, mentorship and other business supports to help them launch and grow their businesses.

I can see that my time is up, so I would like to wrap up by saying once more that I support budget 2024.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to highlight some of the important actions in budget 2024 to ensure that Canada's social safety net works for every generation.

When our government was first elected in 2015, we recognized that the economy had changed. People needed more supports and supports of a new kind. The government got to work very quickly after 2015. We introduced the Canada child benefit, which has helped cut the child poverty rate by more than half. We reinforced the security and dignity of retirement income by strengthening the Canada pension plan and increasing old age security for seniors aged 75 and over.

We permanently eliminated interest on federal student and apprenticeship loans and made generational investments in early learning and child care with $10-a-day child care, cutting child care costs by at least half, giving families money back in their pockets and giving children the best start in life. That equates to thousands of dollars per year. The average family in my area pays about $1,800 per month for child care. If we think about cutting those fees in half, that is substantial savings for each family. These have been investments in people, unprecedented in the history of Canada. With budget 2024, we are making transformative investments that will continue levelling the playing field and lifting up every generation.

At the heart of Canada's social safety net is the promise of access to universal public health care. We have made a promise to each other as Canadians that if we get ill or injured or are born with complicated health issues, we do not need to go into debt just to get essential care. Here in Canada, no matter where one lives or what one earns, people should always be able to get the medical care they need. That is why last year the federal government announced our 10-year health care plan providing close to $200 billion to clear backlogs, improve primary care and cut wait times, delivering the health outcomes that Canadians need and deserve.

With budget 2024, we are introducing new measures that will strengthen Canada's social safety net to lift up every generation. That includes national pharmacare. It includes our landmark move toward building a comprehensive national pharmacare program. Bill C-64, the pharmacare act, proposes the foundational principles of national universal pharmacare in Canada and describes the federal government's intent to work with provinces and territories to provide universal single-payer coverage for most prescription contraceptives and many diabetes medications. The pharmacare act is a concrete step toward the vision of a national pharmacare program that is comprehensive, inclusive and fiscally sustainable today and for the next generation. With budget 2024, the government is proposing to provide $1.5 billion over five years to Health Canada to support the launch of the national pharmacare plan.

Another aspect of strengthening the social safety net is the Canada disability benefit. Last year, Parliament passed Bill C-22, the Canada Disability Benefit Act. This landmark legislation created the legal framework for a benefit for persons with disabilities. The benefit fills the gap in the federal government's robust social safety net between the Canada child benefit and old age security for persons with disabilities, and it is intended to supplement them, not replace them. That is very important. We are not replacing the provincial and territorial income support measures, but offering to top them up. We strongly urge the provinces and territories not to claw back those supports for people living with disabilities.

With budget 2024, we are making this benefit a reality by proposing funding of $6.1 billion over six years and $1.4 billion per year ongoing for the new Canada disability benefit, which would begin providing payments to eligible Canadians starting in July 2025. The Canada disability benefit would increase the financial well-being of low-income persons with disabilities between the ages of 18 and 64 by providing an income-tested maximum benefit of $2,400 per year. As proposed, the benefit is estimated to increase the financial well-being of over 600,000 low-income, working-age persons with disabilities. It is just a start. We know that those individuals who are living below the poverty line and who are living with a disability are going to need more support, and we are committed to increasing that in the future.

With respect to the new youth mental health fund, our government is also well aware that young Canadians are facing high levels of stress and mental health challenges, including depression and anxiety. Many of them are still in school or just starting their careers and are struggling with the cost of private mental health care. The rising cost of living has further exacerbated this issue. This is a top issue for my youth constituency council that has been meeting for years, and the youth on the council have often said it is important for them to have greater access to mental health care. That is exactly why we have set up the $500-million youth mental health fund, which will provide resourcing for five years to help younger Canadians access the mental health care they need.

Supporting children is another aspect, and this is something I feel very strongly about as a father of two young girls. We know that children are the future of Canada. They will become tomorrow's doctors, nurses, electricians, teachers, scientists and small business owners. Every child deserves the best start in life. Their success is certainly Canada's success. With budget 2024, the government is advancing progress through investments to strengthen and grow our Canada-wide early learning and child care system, save for an education later in life, have good health care and unlock the promise of Canada for the next generation.

This includes a decisive action to launch a new national school food program. This is something I advocated for well before I became a member of Parliament, and it was a pleasure to see us get over the finish line and get it included in this year's budget. That national school food program will help ensure that children have the food they need to get a fair start in life regardless of their family circumstance. The $1-billion commitment to the program is expected to provide meals for more than 400,000 kids each year.

We are also supporting millennials and gen Z, for whom we must restore a fair chance. If one stays in school and studies hard, one should be able to afford college, university or an apprenticeship. One should be able to graduate into a good job, put a roof over one's head and build a good middle-class life in this country. In budget 2024, the government is helping to restore generational fairness for millennials and gen Z by unlocking access to post-secondary education, including for the most vulnerable students and youth; investing in the skills of tomorrow; and creating new opportunities for younger Canadians to get the skills they need to get good-paying jobs. More specifically, with budget 2024 we are announcing the government's intention to extend for an additional year the increase in full-time Canada student grants from $3,000 to $4,200 per year and interest-free Canada student loans from $210 to $300 per week. The increased grants will support 587,000 students, and increased interest-free loans will support 652,000 students, with a combined $7.3 billion for the upcoming academic year.

We are also helping to lower costs for everyday Canadians. While I am proud of the social safety net support that our government has provided to Canadians since 2015, we are well aware too many Canadians today are feeling like their hard work is not quite paying off. I am here today to reassure Canadians that it does not have to be this way, and that our government is working hard to help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned dollars. To do this, we are taking action to hold to account those who are charging Canadians unnecessarily high prices, whether it is corporations charging junk fees or unnecessary banking fees. The budget will help better ensure that corporations are not taking advantage of Canadians, and it will make sure the economy is fair, affordable and set up to make it easier to get a good deal.

As Canadians, we take care of each other. It is the promise and the heart of who we are, and it goes back generations. From universal public health care to employment insurance and to strong, stable, funded pensions like the Canada pension plan, there has always been an agreement that we will take care of our neighbours when they have the need. It gave our workers stability and gave our businesses confidence that the right supports were in place where we live. This supports our economy and keeps people healthy, ready and well supported. It keeps the middle class strong.

[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 always nice to see you in the chair, and today is no different.

I am very proud to have the opportunity today to speak to budget 2024, a budget with a special focus on Gen Z, one that aims to ensure a better future for all Canadians.

Budget 2024 ensures that Canada's social safety net will work for every generation. When our government was first elected in 2015, we recognized that the economy had changed. People needed more supports and supports of a new kind. The government got to work immediately.

We introduced the new Canada child benefit. We have helped cut child poverty by more than half in the last eight years with this measure. We reinforced the security and dignity of retirement by strengthening the CPP, increasing the old age security for seniors 75 and over, indexing it for inflation and making the CCB, in particular, tax-free. We then permanently eliminated interest on all federal student and apprenticeship loans for Canadians of student age. We also made generational investments in $10-a-day child care, which cut Canadian child care costs by at least half in every province and territory. That gave families more money back in their pockets, and it gives kids the best start in their lives.

When I walk the streets of Milton, I see a lot of strollers. There are a lot of young people per capita in Milton. Parents stop me all the time to say that they are saving a lot of money on child care costs, and they recognize that was a measure the federal government campaigned on and made happen.

With budget 2024, we are making more transformative investments that will continue to level the playing field and lift up every generation. Top of mind is universal public health care. We made a promise to Canadians that if they get ill or injured, or if they are born with complicated health issues, they do not need to go into debt just to get essential care. Unlike in other countries, we depend on our health care, not our credit card, to get the attention we require when we go to a doctor or a clinic. That is why, last year, the federal government announced our 10-year health care plan, providing close to $200 billion to clear backlogs, improve primary care, cut wait times and deliver the health outcomes that Canadians need and deserve.

With budget 2024, we are introducing new measures that would strengthen Canada's social safety net to lift up every generation. Chief among those is national pharmacare. This includes our landmark move towards building a comprehensive national pharmacare program. Bill C-64, the pharmacare act, proposes the foundational principles of national universal pharmacare in Canada. It describes the federal government's intent to work with provinces and territories to provide universal single-payer coverage for most prescription contraceptives and many diabetes medications.

This is something that I campaigned on and that I strongly believe in. Canada continues to be the only country in the world with socialized medicine without national pharmacare, but that is changing now because our government took action.

We are also very aware of the fact that mental health is health. Our government is aware that young Canadians are facing extremely high levels of stress and mental health challenges. That includes depression and anxiety. It is a tough time to be a millennial. Many of those young people are still in school or are just starting out in their careers, and they are struggling with the costs of private mental health care. The rising cost of living has further exacerbated these concerns. That is why our government remains committed to ensuring that future generations have access to basic mental health supports, so that they can have a healthy start to adulthood.

Budget 2024 also proposes to provide $500 million over five years for the creation of a new youth mental health fund, which will help younger Canadians access the mental health care they need.

We are also supporting children in an incremental way in budget 2024. We know that children are the future of Canada. Many of them are the leaders of today. They will become tomorrow's doctors, nurses, electricians, teachers, scientists and small business owners. Every child deserves the best start in life. Their success is truly Canada's success.

In budget 2024, our government is advancing progress through investments to strengthen and grow our Canada-wide early learning and child care system, save for an education later in life, have good health care and unlock the promise of Canada for the next generation.

Budget 2024 also includes taking decisive action to launch a new national school food program to help ensure that children have access to the food they need to get a fairer start in life, regardless of their family circumstances. The $1-billion program is expected to provide meals for over 400,000 children in schools every single year.

This is very personal for me. I benefited quite a lot from school food programs in my community. I was lucky. I grew up in a town that had lots of volunteers and great community-serving organizations, ones like Food for Life, Halton Food For Thought and Food4Kids in Halton Region. When kids needed a snack then or need a snack now, they can access a snack, but that is not true in every single school.

I am really proud of the fact that Brent Mansfield was here. Through the work that the Coalition for Healthy School Food did and the advocacy that all the food security organizations have done over the last decades, we are building Canada's first-ever national school food program. It would build on the work that great charities, such as Food for Life, Food For Thought, Food4Kids and many others, have been doing in their regions. It is important to note that this is all made possible through volunteer work and teachers taking on expenses themselves, sometimes bringing food from home, and sometimes taking time out of their curriculum to teach edible education and nutritional literacy. These are really important skills.

I am a big fan of Jamie Oliver. I saw on social media yesterday that he congratulated the mayor of London, in the U.K., for introducing more healthy school food for kids. I am a huge supporter and advocate for a national school food program, and I am thrilled that it is reflected in budget 2024.

We are also supporting millennials and gen Z. We must restore a fair chance for them. If they stay in school and study hard, they should be able to afford college, university or an apprenticeship. They should be able to graduate, get a good job, put a roof over their head and build a good middle-class life for them and their families. Budget 2024 would ensure the government's help to restore generational fairness for millennials and gen Z by removing the interest on Canada student loans; unlocking access to post-secondary education, including for the most vulnerable students and youth; investing in the skills of tomorrow; and creating new opportunities for younger Canadians to get the skills they need to get great jobs.

More specifically, in budget 2024, we are announcing the government's intention to extend for an additional year the increase in full-time Canada student grants from $3,000 to $4,200 per year and interest-free Canada student loans from $210 to $300 per week. The increased grants would support 587,000 students across Canada and increased interest-free loans would support 652,000 students with a combined $7.3 billion for the upcoming academic year. I cannot think of a better investment.

While I am proud of the social safety net that our government has provided Canadians since 2015 and certainly before that, we are aware that too many Canadians are not feeling as though their hard work is paying off. I am here today to reassure Canadians that it does not have to be that way. I am regularly heard in this House talking about co-op housing, and I am really glad that we are advancing on the promise to restore co-op housing in this country, to build more co-operative housing and to invest in more non-market housing solutions.

Our government is working hard to ensure that Canadians can keep more of their money. In many respects, this would ensure that they can invest in the economy; however, it is also about the well-being of families. We are taking action to hold to account those who are charging Canadians unnecessarily high prices, whether it is corporations charging junk fees or banks charging unnecessary banking fees. This budget would also better assure that corporations are not taking advantage of Canadians. It would make sure the economy is fair and affordable, as well as that everybody is set up to get a good deal. Budget 2024 would also build on these efforts and give people back control over their personal finances and banking choices, with action to cap banking fees and give better access to digital banking, lower-cost accounts and stronger consumer protection.

While the Conservatives continually prioritize the interests of wealthy CEOs and corporate lobbyists, particularly from the oil and gas sector, we will stay focused. We know that we work for Canadians here in the House, not the greedy corporate interests of the top 0.1% of earners. With some of the measures in budget 2024 that I have touched on today, we are ensuring that the support and advocacy continue.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, with whom we have, of course, ongoing co-operation and good work.

I can assure the hon. member that we will continue today with the report stage of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, despite the 20,000 automated, AI-generated robo-amendments that the Conservatives put up to obstruct this bill. We will take up third reading debate on that bill on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will commence second reading debate on Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare.

The budget presentation will take place later that afternoon, at 4 p.m., with the first day of debate on the budget taking place on Thursday of next week.

On Wednesday, we hope to resume debate on second reading of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Lastly, on Friday, we will resume debate on the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

I thank all members for their co-operation.

National Defence

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that the Minister of Health was prepared today to deliver a very important speech on Bill C-64, on pharmacare, and members of the Conservative Party knew that.

I have introduced petition after petition on the importance of pharmacare for a number of years now. I have been advocating very strongly for it. As the House leader of the New Democratic Party has articulated, literally millions of Canadians are going to benefit from a national pharmacare program, and this is just another piece of legislation the Conservatives want to play games with. They have no intention of making life easier for Canadians. Their sole focus is on developing bumper stickers for the next election, which is very sad to see.

Pharmacare

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, federal pharmacare is not necessarily just around the corner.

Bill C-64 talks about a principle “to consider when working towards the implementation of national universal pharmacare”. In other words, it is basically just another election promise. Frankly, the NDP got bought off cheap.

If, after discussing a principle to consider when working towards implementation, Ottawa actually were to someday end up with pharmacare, which Quebec already has, will Quebec be able to opt out with full compensation?