Health Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I can tell you that I was head of Heart and Stroke's Ontario mission and I was head of their national program for children and youth. I can't tell you how many patients whose heart disease and strokes are the result of improperly treated diabetes or how many patients are winding up in hospitals with blindness or amputation or are dying because they don't have the medication they need and aren't adhering to it.

This is very serious, and it's why, when we're having this conversation, it's so important to talk about solutions. I really haven't met people out there in the country who don't want to see us fix this, so I think having a solutions-based conversation is extremely important.

We have a really great solution here. I hope Parliament adopts it. I haven't heard another solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, you have two and half minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, we're going to tell the truth today. It's been 30 years since Quebeckers developed the expertise to administer their own pharmacare program, without federal assistance. We didn't ask you for a single cent and we've never needed your expertise. What's more, you don't have that expertise, since you don't currently have a pharmacare program. I recognize that you have good intentions and that it's a good idea. That's great. We're in agreement there.

Currently, 45% of the population of Quebec is covered under a public drug plan, while the remaining 55% of Quebeckers are covered under a private plan.

Minister, what can the federal government do better than the Quebec government, which has 30 years of experience?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Give me the opportunity to negotiate with the province of Quebec to identify common goals and add to what the Quebec program is providing. It's entirely possible and that's my goal.

I understand what you're saying. However, the program will be managed by the Quebec government and can exist only on a co‑operative basis. Any other situation wouldn't be possible.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

All right. We want to manage the program, but we also want the right to withdraw with full compensation. That's what Quebec is asking for.

Minister, do you know where to find the best pharmacare program in Canada? Quebec. We have 30 years of experience.

Tell me concretely what the federal government can do and what the Quebec government can't do under its own program.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

We can learn many things from the province of Quebec. I'm greatly inspired by what it has accomplished. I think that, by working together, we can improve the situation not only in Quebec but across the country.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Name one thing that the federal government can do that Quebec can't.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

First, it's a matter of money.

Second, it's about co‑operation. We can always obtain better results by working together.

Quebeckers are concerned about their health, and not about areas of jurisdiction. It's my responsibility to work with the provinces to improve the quality of health care across the country, including in Quebec.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Minister, if you want to improve health care in Quebec, transfer Quebec the amounts needed to fund that care and respect your agreement topay 50% of health care costs. Once you have done that, you can come and teach us things, all right?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

All right. I'll respect the principle and we'll work together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Julian, please go ahead for two and a half minutes.

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

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak now, Mr. Chair, because I have an announcement to make. My Bloc Québécois colleague seems to be suggesting the opposite of what nine major organizations in Quebec stated just a few hours ago. These organizations include the Union des consommateurs, the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the Coalition solidarité santé, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Fédération interprofessionnelle de la santé du Québec, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Table des regroupements provinciaux d'organismes communautaires et bénévoles, to name just a few.

These organizations, which represent over two million Quebeckers, are saying that they applaud Bill C‑64 introduced by the federal government: “Never have we been so close to establishing truly public and universal pharmacare. Quebec's hybrid public‑private program is creating an unsustainable two‑tiered system that must be corrected.”

In the brief they submitted today, these organizations point out that the current Quebec pharmacare program is far from guaranteeing everyone reasonable and equitable access to medication, as set out under Quebec's Act respecting prescription drug insurance. These organizations are saying that Bill C‑64 puts in place a framework leading to the creation of universal and public pharmacare. They stated the following: “We're calling on the federal government not to give in to the provinces and territories that are demanding the right to opt out unconditionally and with full financial compensation.”

Minister, given that this large coalition representing a significant proportion of the population of Quebec is saying that it supports Bill C‑64, should Quebec members of Parliament listen to it?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I would simply say yes. That seems logical. When people are willing to work together, anything is possible. When people are looking for a fight or problems, it's easy to find them.

Those organizations aren't the only voices we need to listen to. Quebeckers just want us to improve the quality of health care, and this is proof of that.

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

Of course, that's because nearly 15% of the population of Quebec isn't covered by the current plan. The reality is that public‑private plans are often far more expensive. We know that. They turn a profit but they don't cover everyone. So—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Julian. Your time—

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

—what are your comments on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Please give a brief answer.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I have nothing to add, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right. Thank you.

I think Dr. Ellis and Mr. Steinley are going to split the next turn.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

That's correct, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Dr. Ellis, you have the floor.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Interestingly enough, this legislation talks about a universal single-payer system. Can you explain that a bit, and not in your usual ongoing fashion that you like to do? Can you simply explain to Canadians what that might mean?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Sure. It means that somebody is going to be able to get the drugs that they need without having to pay.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

That's great. That's interesting.

My colleague talked a bit about somebody who had pre-existing coverage through their employer. Why would employers continue to offer their employees a program if this is going to exist?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Employers offer much more coverage than we're contemplating here. This is a very tiny sliver of what employers offer.

I can tell you from negotiating these things that there is not the opportunity to go à la carte. If you try to pull out a tiny fraction, you're not going to save very much. You're going to show your employees that you're not serious about them.

What I've seen from the insurance industry is that they are very anxious to maintain their coverage and their business—