Evidence of meeting #118 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pharmacare.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Again, if we're going to continue to go down this road, Chair, I guess I would wonder what the relevance is of the non-existent dental care program.
Is it the member's point to point out that this is another failed program? I'm not sure what the relevance of the failing dental care program is.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Mr. Julian, can you bring it back around to either the remarks made by Dr. Ellis or CPC-7?
Thank you.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Well, those were the remarks of Dr. Ellis. He was wrong and I'm establishing the facts.
There have been two million Canadian seniors so far, with tens of thousands signing up every week, and 100,000 that received dental care in the first three weeks. These are all appropriate. In terms of pharmacare and the bill itself, it will make a difference, as dental care already has.
I understand that the Conservatives are very wary of that because all of a sudden the next election is much more likely to be about where the Conservatives would cut, rather than what they'd love it to be on, which is this constant talk about the price on pollution.
CPC-7 is simply not an appropriate amendment. It restricts access to the medication that Canadians need.
What we need to do, and what this bill does—as we've heard from the vast majority of witnesses—is provide supports to six million Canadians with diabetes who are paying, in some cases, $1,000 or $1,500 a month for the medication, and nine million Canadians who need contraception.
The bill needs to be voted through. I would ask, through you, Mr. Chair, for the Conservatives to stop the filibuster and allow us to actually vote on these amendments.
For CPC-7, I will be voting no.
Liberal
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Where do I start, or where do I continue?
You know, what's frustrating for me is that Canadians out there are struggling. There is no two ways about it. Whether on dental care or affordable prescriptions and medications, I think we need to do better.
The challenge I have is that this government is putting forth a piece of legislation that says there's universal dental care, and there isn't. Now they're coming out with a piece of legislation that they're billing as universal pharmacare, which it isn't, so Canadians are being lied to. This is a four-page document that has serious ramifications nationally. There's no definition of “single payer” or “first dollar”, so do we even know what this bill or pamphlet is?
The minister could not answer simple questions, such as how many Canadians are without doctors. He could not answer the question of what's going to happen to the 90% of Canadians who do have a benefit plan for medications, or the at least 85%. What's going to happen with those plans? Who's going to pay for those plans?
I know that I met personally with the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. They raised serious questions. They also raised the fact that nobody's talking to them. Nobody's talking to the insurers about what they're going to do. What about organizations and companies that have chambers of commerce that have plans for their memberships and for their employees? What are these companies and these groups to do?
As far as I can tell, none of this has been worked out. However, I guess—as it is with this government—it's just like the cheque's in the mail. “Wait and see. We'll figure it out. Just get it to committee. You'll work on it; amendments will be passed, and we'll make it better.” Well, it never happens.
You know, another bit of troubling information was that the minister admitted that none of the provinces has asked for this. To our Bloc colleague, was Quebec even consulted?
As I mentioned, we heard from witnesses who expressed deep concern that Canadians would lose their current private plans.
We have a lengthy and complicated drug approval process, which adds to the issue of the cost of our drugs and prescriptions in our country. Wouldn't it be better for our government, the coalition and all of us at this table to work to find a way to make drugs more affordable for all Canadians rather than having a band-aid solution that looks at...?
Again, you're calling it a national pharmacare program, but you're really dealing with just two types of medications. We have what's being billed as a public pharmacare plan or a national pharmacare plan. They always say to wait and see what this is going to look like.
You have millions and millions of Canadians—85%—who have a plan already in place. What is it going to look like for them? What is it going to look like for those who don't have a plan?
All we've done at this point is create false hope. As Dr. Ellis has mentioned, you have Canadians, constituents, who are going into pharmacies, believing they now have a pharmacare plan. We do not have a pharmacare plan, just like we do not have a dental plan.
My point is that if you look at the CPC amendments that have been put forth, they are reasonable amendments. They are non-partisan for the most part, for a change, I guess. We've just taken a common-sense approach to this.
I raised my hand at the earliest part of Dr. Ellis' intervention because we have three physicians on this committee. I respect them for what they do, or what they did, and the sacrifices they make within our communities for the people they serve. I have been on this committee for over a year now, and some of the best testimony.... I think I've said this. I'm on record as having said this. We could close the doors and just listen to the experiences that our three colleagues have had. I believe we would probably get more common sense out of them than we do out of the front benches of the government.
It's deeply frustrating for me when we.... All I have to say is that it's going to be a long five hours if this is the way it's going to go. It's already been an hour and a bit, and we're only on one clause.
Further to that, Mr. Naqvi, to publicly tell a colleague to go and amuse or pleasure himself—whatever words you used—in private is not very parliamentary. You can look at me when I'm talking to you. I think you owe our colleague an apology, because that was very unparliamentary. If I were the chair, I would have made you apologize.
With that, I'll end.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Julian opened a bit of a Pandora's box. In the House of Commons, there was clearly a ruling by the Speaker that said that using a term like “coalition government” was perfectly acceptable, so we shall continue to use that. There is an NDP-Liberal coalition.
Mr. Julian knows this because without his support, this bill probably would never have come to the House of Commons. For trying to make that happen, I will actually take my hat off to Mr. Julian and say that this is the only principled thing the NDP actually attempted to do, whether I agree with it or not.
Certainly, the other part of this is—it's not necessarily related to whether I agree with pharmacare or not—that we also know, and I know my colleague from the Bloc will enjoy this, that this NDP-Liberal coalition continues to want to dabble in the provincial responsibility of health care. I think that is incredibly distressing.
When we heard, as I mentioned previously, the testimony of two of Canada's experts with respect to pharmacare, not only were they not consulted, but they also didn't agree with this approach. That's some of the testimony we heard.
I don't necessarily want to go down the road of dental care, but, Chair, you've ruled previously that if someone else has brought it up, then we could actually talk about it. Mr. Julian wants to talk about dental care all the time when he gets a chance. Again, it's not about dental care; it's the frivolous nature with which they portray this.
When I was doing riding events on the weekend, the Nova Scotia Dental Association said—I suppose Mr. Julian has his conspiracy theory that we, in the Conservatives, asked them to make these ads—to paraphrase, that the Canada dental care plan is not free. It's not going to be free for Canadians. If they can find a dentist who will support it.... As my colleague, Mr. Doherty, talked about, finding a dentist who would possibly support this is difficult and those dentists are perhaps non-existent.
Sadly, Chair, your province of P.E.I., for a very long time, was having no dentists actually sign up for the Canadian dental care plan.
When you begin to look at those statistics, even though the opaque nature of the NDP wishes to portray this as a great success, it's much like the incredible success that this NDP-Liberal coalition has allowed our publicly funded health care system to become.
For the edification of those around the table, and perhaps for our two witnesses at the end of the table, the answer is that seven million Canadians at the current time do not have access to primary care. I agree that this is a big number. It's hard for the minister, who does not have a clue about this particular issue. He struggles with that large number. I get it.
That being said, those are still the facts. Sadly, coming down the road, 10 million Canadians will be without access to primary care, which will be 25% of the population.
Maybe that's this NDP-Liberal coalition's idea of saying that's how we cost-control health care. People don't have access, they can't get lab work done, they can't see a specialist, and then—guess what—we can control the cost. I surely hope with all my heart that is not the nefarious plan behind it and that it is simply incompetence. Of course, that's easily rectified during the next election.
Again, the opaque nature with respect to Mr. Julian's comments around dental care is really frustrating to Canadians, because they believe they can just walk into any dentist's office now and receive free dental care. Everybody around this table knows that's not true. They know it. Why? It's because I know you're getting the same emails that I am.
I know Dr. Powlowski over there in Thunder Bay—Rainy River is getting the same messages, whether or not he wants to admit it. I'm not asking him to admit it, because I rather like him. That being said, it would be embarrassing for him to have to admit that he's getting those calls from people.
I know that you, Chair, as well, are struggling with that in your great riding in Prince Edward Island. People are struggling in Charlottetown to get seen. I know that. I wouldn't ask you. I wouldn't presume to ask you if people are calling your office and asking, “Where is the dentist who will see me?”
Now, that doesn't mean that seeing a dental hygienist is not great. However, if we are underscoring the need for the treatment of periodontal disease and dental caries, and the potential need for extractions for people who have not had care.... We hear these incredibly emotional stories from our colleagues all the time. Those folks need to see a dentist. That's just the way it is, but without that access, the NDP-Liberal coalition is selling Canadians a bill of goods that is just not true.
Here we have it once again—another bill of goods called “an act respecting pharmacare”. You will hear us call this a pharmacare pamphlet all night, over and over again. It is a four-page document, which, again, is not transparent to Canadians and is lacking in detail. It is simply directed towards contraception and diabetes at the current time.
The other thing Mr. Julian talked about was cuts. That's fascinating to me. Over and over again in the House of Commons, we've heard the NDP-Liberal costly coalition saying that all the Conservatives are going to do is cut things. Well, there are a couple of things we're going to cut. I think our leader Pierre Poilievre mentioned this today when talking about what we will cut.
Well, we will cut taxes, which is incredibly important to benefit Canadians, simply because they are suffering under the tremendous tax burden this costly-coalition spending government is creating for Canadians. The other things, of course, that we're going to cut are Liberal seats and NDP seats. Those things shall be a thing of the past, thankfully, on behalf of Canadians.
There are a couple of other things. Definitions will be important coming up, and other numbers, which the minister failed to address. I've already mentioned—I won't go through it again—the seven to 10 million Canadians without access to primary care. That's an incredibly large number, and it is embarrassing to the minister. I understand that. He thinks it's politics, and I think it's simply education for Canadians to understand they are not alone.
The other question we asked during testimony was this: How many Canadians died waiting for treatment in this country? The number is between 17,000 and 30,000 Canadians dying in one year while waiting for treatment.
My question, then, is this: Why would Canadians want to entrust another large national system to the NDP-Liberal costly coalition when they can't manage one large program? Well, now it's two. This will be the third, actually. They cannot manage pharmacare. We know that. People on a waiting list are dying, and Canadians don't have access to pharmacare. They can't manage dental care, because they can't get dentists to sign up for their terrible program. We also know that dental care is not free. Why would anybody in their right mind...?
This is the mantle that my colleagues and I bear here on behalf of Canadians. It's to say, “Why would Canadians accept allowing the NDP-Liberal costly coalition to bring forward another nationalized program when they can't manage the two that already exist?”
I'm simply restricting my comments to the health care field. I certainly don't want to talk about the litany of other programs, because I'm sure, Chair, those might be outside of the scope of what we want to discuss. Certainly they are absolutely unable to manage the health care programs at the current time, so why would we want them to try to manage something else? My father—God rest his soul—has been gone for 30 years. He would say that the NDP-Liberal costly coalition could not manage a marble game, which appears to be true.
That being said, the other thing that Mr. Julian talked about was testimony that we heard. We heard testimony, testimony and testimony. We all know that even for this sparsely populated pharmacare pamphlet of four pages, all we got to hear was 10 hours of witness testimony.
When we begin to look at that, I can't tell you the number of people who came up to me and said, “Wow, we really wanted to be heard from.” I told them, “Well, the government moved closure and said that the health committee cannot talk about this for any more than five hours last Thursday and five hours on Friday.” We are now here on behalf of Canadians, talking in a clause-by-clause fashion about the pharmacare pamphlet.
The amount of testimony that we heard was a pittance compared to the spending ask on behalf of the NDP-Liberal costly coalition. What we did hear very clearly, and I find this absolutely fascinating, is that this particular amendment is about making it clear that this bill is simply about contraception and diabetes medications and products. We heard testimony over and over again that that's what this was about.
Again, as I mentioned previously, the Prime Minister was in my hometown of Truro on Friday, where I was here working hard on behalf—
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
The other rule, of course, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chair, is repetition. Dr. Ellis is now repeating himself.
Those are the two rules. I understand Conservatives want to block this legislation. They don't want Canadians to have the benefits. That's fair enough, but those rules of relevance and repetition do have to be respected at this committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
This has been brought up several times, and it appears that it's not going away.
I've taken the opportunity during the debate to have a look at House of Commons Procedure and Practice. This is in connection with committee meetings. On pages 1058-1059, it states:
In the event of disorder, the Chair may suspend the meeting until order can be restored or, if the situation is considered to be so serious as to prevent the committee from continuing with its work, the meeting may be adjourned. In addition, the Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or are unrelated to the matter before the committee. If the member in question persists in making repetitive or off-topic comments, the Chair can give the floor to another member.
We have always exercised a significant degree of latitude. We are under pretty serious time constraints to get the business done that has been referred to us by the House.
After reading that, I will say to you that my patience is waning. I am not about to take any of those measures yet, but you're making it hard for me not to.
I caution all members to bear in mind what is said in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Please don't put me in that position. Let's respect the rules of repetition and relevance, and let's respect the tight timeline we're under.
Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair.
Interestingly enough, I did have to gavel a meeting when the member from the NDP was being disrespectful. I thank you for your intervention and that reminder.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
That is not correct. I did challenge the chair in a ruling, and that's why he adjourned the meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
That is a point of debate, and maybe you could wait your turn if you want to participate in the debate.
Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Certainly, in that particular time, we know that the member was not directing his comments through the chair. I'll leave it at that.
That being said, the point about the Prime Minister talking about contraception is the testimony that we heard. In the testimony that we heard, we didn't....
The NDP member talked about heart drugs. We heard no testimony about heart drugs, not one bit. We heard a lot of testimony about contraception. There was the—I can't remember her title—physician from The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Certainly she was not here to talk about heart drugs. I didn't hear her talk about that. We had the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. We had the Canadian Diabetes Association here. Nobody talked about heart drugs. For that member down there of the NDP-Liberal costly coalition to go on and talk about heart drugs....
Again, this is about being transparent. It's about saying to Canadians what this bill is about. This bill is not about heart drugs. This is a little teeny-tiny four-page pamphlet to spend $2 billion on things. Yes, they're important. Contraception is important. So are diabetes medications and products. Those things are important. There's no doubt about it.
However, when that member goes on and talks about the testimony that we heard in this committee, I'll again go back just to underscore for one second, Mr. Chair, that we heard very little testimony that it is important that Canadians understand, and that is the rationale for this first amendment: to say that this is about contraception or the treatment of diabetes, and to support..., etc.
That being said—all those things being taken into consideration—this is an incredibly important amendment on behalf of Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I would simply say, Mr. Chair, that the House of Commons gave us a job to do. The Conservatives seem unwilling to do that job. They're blocking even having a vote on CPC-7, even though members have already had the opportunity to pronounce themselves on it.
I would suggest to members of the Conservative Party that since dental care has worked, including in their ridings—and there are thousands of Canadians already, after the first three weeks, who have now benefited from the dental care program that the NDP pushed the government to put into place in their ridings—they should not support—
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I have a point of order.
Mr. Chair, I believe that you read from Bosc and Gagnon specifically with regard to not being repetitive. I think this member talked already about the dental care program, so I would suggest to you—with all due respect, sir—that hearing once again those numbers is very repetitive.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The pharmacare bill will help many people—millions of Canadians. I would hope that the Conservatives would stop their filibuster and allow us to vote on CPC-7. They've now spent almost two hours on one amendment, which is exactly why the House of Commons directed this committee to continue to sit until we've completed the amendments. It's because—
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
I have a point of order.
It has not been anywhere near two hours. Furthermore, we started late.