House of Commons Hansard #30 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was universal.

Topics

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I note, as I did at the beginning of the day, that there have been many thoughtful speeches that really speak to people on the sensitive issue of health.

To come back to the substance of the issue, I will ask my colleague two things. First, does he not believe that Quebec should have the right to opt out with full compensation if this motion is adopted? It is important to make that clear before the motion is adopted. Second, does he think that we should figure out how that would work right away?

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

Madam Speaker, we know we are embarking on a path toward universal pharmacare for this country, and our government believes it is necessary to support Canadians. As to how it will roll out in the provinces and territories, a whole set of negotiations and discussions need to be had before anybody can commit to what it might look like going forward.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, we know that the Liberals have been embarking on this process of bringing in universal pharmacare for Canadians for 23 years now. As we are still embarking on this slow journey to get there, we have a motion before us in the House. Given that we have a plan, which has been laid out by the Hoskins report that the government itself had commissioned, will the member be supporting this motion?

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset, I will be supporting this motion.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I would like to emphasize what I believe we have been witnessing over the last number of years. Under this Prime Minister, we have had a progressive government that has dealt with issues like poverty, lifting seniors and children out of poverty.

One way we can give a helping hand is to continue to move forward on pharmacare, which I believe is a really important issue to all Canadians. It does not matter what province they are from. The idea of providing medication to individuals through a pharmacare program is, in fact, long overdue. For the first time, we have a Prime Minister and government caucus committed to making a difference on this point.

I am wondering if my colleague and friend could provide his thoughts on how wonderful it is that we finally have a concentrated group of MPs in the government benches and others who want to see it happen.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

Madam Speaker, health care funding has been a priority of this government. We know, for example, that transfers to the provinces are nearly $42 billion. Since 2014, there has been an additional $10 billion going to provinces, much of it aimed at taking care of issues like mental health and home care services. Now we want to move to a universal pharmacare program. This government is committed to making that happen and I fully support it.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, my question is brief. Has the member spoken with pharmacists in his constituency about their feelings on the struggle that already exists for pharmacists to access the drugs that Canadians need?

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

Madam Speaker, I have spoken with many different groups and organizations, including pharmacists, and as I have stated very clearly, my position on universal pharmacare is that I support it and support what this government is trying to do.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Today we are talking about an NDP motion on something we have been advocating for a very long time. It is for the government to act on bringing a universal comprehensive single-payer pharmacare system to Canadians.

This has been a long-time dream of the NDP. In fact, 53 years ago, Tommy Douglas brought to us medicare. This is what Canadians itemize as one of the single proudest moments in our Canadian history: to ensure that Canadians can see the doctors and get the medical services they need. This is unlike south of the border, where people in the United States literally cannot access the medical attention they need, and people die from that situation. We are the envy of the universe. To complete that dream of Tommy Douglas, it has always the vision of the CCF and the NDP to bring in a comprehensive universal single-payer pharmacare program.

We know that the Liberals have said they support this idea and have said so for a very long time. In fact, to be more precise, for exactly 23 years they have said that they would support it. Now we are in a situation of a minority government, so let us hope, and I hope with all of my heart, that in this Parliament we will implement a universal single-payer comprehensive pharmacare system. That is what our motion is pushing for. That is what we want to see, and I believe that is what Canadians want to see.

In fact, out of the government's own consultative process with its own council came the Hoskins report, with 60 unequivocal recommendations laying out a concise plan for achieving this goal. The report highlights a number of things that warrant attention in this House.

Just so we know, some 7.5 million Canadians do not have adequate prescription coverage. That is to say, some 7.5 million Canadians cannot get the medication they need. Sixteen per cent of the people in Canada went without medication for heart disease, for cholesterol or for hypertension because of cost.

The amount of prescription-drug spending paid out of pocket in Canada in 2016 was $7.6 billion. That is a lot of money coming out of the pockets of everyday Canadians, money that they could otherwise use to support their family if there were a universal pharmacare program. The government talks all the time about how it wants to support middle-class Canadians; implementing universal pharmacare would support every single Canadian, including middle-class Canadians.

The people who are perhaps hardest hit because they cannot access a pharmacare program are women. Fewer women have employer health benefits compared to men. Women are more likely to report noncompliance to their prescription medication because of costs, not because they do not want to comply but because they cannot afford it.

Cost-related noncompliance is a common problem among the indigenous community as well, and people between 18 and 44 years old, people with lower health status and people with lower incomes also often cannot access the medication they need because they cannot afford it.

There is no question in my mind that it is time to act. I know some members will say that we cannot proceed with this because the provinces and territories say they do not want to. One of the issues that provinces and territories have tabled and put on the record is that they need the government to ensure that the health transfer payments are kept up. If the Liberals actually wanted to do something about this and ensure that negotiations go well with provinces and territories, they would ensure that the health transfer payments are actually provided.

Instead of adopting the Harper Conservatives' cuts to the health transfer payments, the government could say, “No, we are not going to take that path. We are not going to go down the path of the Harper Conservatives. In fact, we will fully fulfill our requirements and responsibility for health care transfer payments.” When we do that, I fully expect that the provinces and territories will come to the table and earnestly negotiate with the Canadian government to put in place a universal comprehensive single-payer pharmacare program.

I will share a story with members.

During the campaign, like everyone else in the House, I went door knocking. One constituent's story has shaken me to this day. He is a senior who just recently retired. He worked hard all his life and paid his taxes and all of those things. As he aged, he became ill. He has a number of complicated health conditions, and his medication costs him about $1,000 a month. That is a lot of money for a senior on a fixed income.

He told me that he had some savings and he could pay for this medication for a few months, but of course his savings will run out, and then what will he do? I think he told me that his savings would run out by this summer. He was very worried about what would happen when that occurred, because he would not be able to get the life-saving medication that he needs. He said to me, “You have to go and fight for a universal pharmacare program, not just for me but for my friends and other people like me.”

I took his words to heart, and here we are in this debate. I ask the government to support this motion before us and then get on with it and actually fully realize this motion and put it into reality. No more excuses. No more delays. No more “I can't do this and I can't do that.” No more saying that we support it and then decades later we are still talking about it. I do not want to come back to the House to have to debate this once again. I want to see this program in place, and Canadians want to see it as well.

This program will save lives. We know that. More importantly, or perhaps of equal importance for those people who talk about money, this program will save money as well. How often do we get to do this? We can have our cake and eat it too. This is the kind of program that we are talking about. We are in a minority government situation, and it can become reality. How about we fulfill that dream? How about we end the notion that Canada is the only country in the world that has a universal medicare program without pharmacare? How about we put that to bed once and for all, forever, by implementing universal pharmacare?

The government says that it wants to act, but I do not want to hear just words any more; I want to see this action in the budget. In the upcoming 2020 budget, I want to see the government allocate resources to get this done.

The Hoskins report, which I read page by page last night to get the full scope of its recommendations, has 60 recommendations. It outlines very clearly, step by step, how we can get this done and where the savings are, so the government cannot have the excuse of not having a blueprint. The government had this work done to counsel its work, and Dr. Hoskins and the team went out there and did this work, laying out in detail, step by step, how this could be done, so no more excuses.

The constituent I met during the campaign is in desperate need for the government to act. People in our community are in desperate need for the government to act. For members of Parliament, especially on the Liberal side, this is our moment to make that difference, to realize the legacy that Tommy Douglas has left us to fully implement universal medicare and pharmacare.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you were to seek it, I think you would find that there is consent to adopt the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the Opposition motion in the name of the Member for Vancouver Kingsway, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Monday, March 23rd, 2020, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent to propose the motion?

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

(Motion agreed to)

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Madam Speaker, there is undoubtedly passion in my colleague's presentation, but there are two aspects that bring out my inner Conservative.

First, what would she do to preserve the contributions currently made by the private sector in some of the patchwork of programs that are being offered through private company plans and being used by Canadians right now? What would we do to avoid shipping those costs directly from the private sector onto the government?

Second, in deference to the story the member told about the person who was obviously not well off and was burdened with the expense, what does she propose to do with the very well off? Would she propose, for instance, to have an annual deductible on pharmacare, based basically on an income test?

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, yes, it does bring out the Conservative side of the Liberals, because that is consistent with their action on many of their programs, not the least of which is universal pharmacare.

I would advise the member to read Dr. Hoskins' report, because that is what I did yesterday, and it answers all of these questions.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate hearing from my fellow British Columbian on this important matter.

The member seems to be very insistent on having her and her party's way. Obviously there are some constitutional issues, but what happens if a province disagrees with the NDP? What measures does she think the federal government needs to do to implement the New Democrats' vision, particularly when this is the jurisdiction of the provinces?

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, the Hoskins report said this:

Be bold, Canadians told us. Be brave, they appealed to us. But most of all, they reminded us to heed those uniquely Canadian values: looking out for one another, supporting neighbours and communities through tough times and treating each other with fairness.

That is the plan forward. I understand some provinces are saying that they do not have enough resources from the federal government. I would ask the Conservative members to check themselves, because it was the Harper government that cut the transfer payments to provinces and territories. Had it not done that, the provinces may well come to the table and say “Yes, we can do this.”

As for the provinces, Quebec may well want to opt out because it has a fairly robust pharmacare program. There is that opportunity, but that said, I would also ask it to think carefully before it exercised that option, because the universal pharmacare program could actually save Quebec money as well.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, we have a lot of audacity and courage.

The member is right to say that the cost of drugs is unacceptable. Quebeckers think so too. That is why we set up a universal plan so that no one falls through the cracks. There was a need. The program is now a done deal and we should show respect for those who implemented it.

The other question has to do with the cost of drugs. Even though we have a universal pharmacare plan that falls under the administrative aspect of this file, the situation that we are describing will go on as long as no decision is made to control drug prices, which is something that falls under federal jurisdiction. I repeat: Canada pays 19 times more than every other OECD country. The government needs to take action.

Do you agree that this universal issue that affects all of Canada must be addressed?

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I remind the member that she must address her remarks to the Chair and not directly to members.

The hon. member for Vancouver East for a brief response.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, that is the whole point about a national universal pharmacare program. Buying bulk would save money, and that may help Quebec as well.

Quebec could opt out if it wishes to. Having stronger negotiating power with the pharmaceuticals will make a difference in terms of costs and the price of drugs for Quebec and across the country. This is a power we can have with a national pharmacare program.

The Liberals actually engaged with pharmaceutical companies more than 700 times in talking about the companies' needs. Perhaps it is time for the government to focus on what everyday Canadians need.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, since we have just 10 minutes before the start of question period and since I will not be able to come back after that, I will limit my remarks to five minutes so my colleagues can ask questions. I think this is an extremely important conversation. I will stop talking five minutes before question period so my colleagues can ask questions.

We are facing a pandemic around the world. When we look at how our universal medicare is working, we see an illustrative example of why we are calling on Parliament today to ratify the idea of a universal, public pharmacare program. There is a clear difference between Canadian-style medicare, where we have managed to keep the risk of COVID-19 low, and public health officials across the country working hard to maintain that level, and other jurisdictions, for example the United States, where the medical system is neither universal nor publicly administered. As a result of that, it is much more costly than in the Canadian context.

In British Columbia, the B.C. NDP government, John Horgan and public health officials have been working hard to contain the virus. When we compare the infection rates of COVID-19 there to those in Washington state, right across the border, two hours from my home and from my constituency, we are seeing brush fires erupting in the area of Seattle. In Lynnwood, for example, we are progressively seeing schools closing, churches closing and not celebrating mass or communion. A series of senior centres have had to close as well. The difference is quite clear.

That is part of why, in Canada, it is so essential that we have access to the health care system at all times, without having to worry about having to pay or whether our families have the capacity to pay. It is the same principle with pharmacare. This is why this debate is so vital today.

As parliamentarians, we have had Liberal governments promising to deliver pharmacare for almost a quarter century. The choice needs to be made for a Canadian-style, universal, publicly administered pharmacare program as called for in the Hoskins report, as called for unanimously by the Standing Committee on Health, and as called for by the Standing Committee on Finance. In the report we tabled just two weeks ago, the Standing Committee on Finance called for a public, universal and national pharmacare program.

The difference between that and some kind of piecemeal, for-profit pharmacare program is quite clear. We know with piecemeal, for-profit pharmacare many people are left out, and the costs are much more expensive. The reality, as detailed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is that Canadians as a whole would save $4 billion if we moved to universal, publicly administered pharmacare. Businesses would save about $6 billion. Provinces would save, because of the federal government's contribution.

Canadians who are struggling to pay for medication prescribed to them by their doctor would benefit enormously from pharmacare. It would protect our whole country in the event of these kinds of pandemics that can occur.

I am going to tell two stories before I sit down to allow questions.

The first is about Jim. Jim sits outside the House of Commons in -30°C weather, in blizzards and in the blazing sun because he needs to beg to pay for his medication. He gets about $800 a month on social assistance, which is enough to pay for his room and his food. He cannot work because of his disability, and because of his need for that medication to keep him alive, he needs an additional $500 per month. It breaks my heart to see him every day. I make contributions, of course, and I think a number of other members of Parliament do, but in a country as wealthy as Canada, situations like Jim's should not exist. People should not have to beg in order to pay for their medication.

Another story is of a family that lives just a couple of blocks from my home in Burnaby, B.C., just off Cumberland Street. That family is paying $1,000 a month for heart medication that keeps the father of the family alive. They are having to make the tough choice, because of the escalating rents we are seeing, of whether to keep paying for the heart medication or to pay their rent. Canadian families should not have to make that choice.

That is why we need national, universal and publicly administered pharmacare, not piecemeal, not for-profit, not much more expensive, but the kind of universal program Tommy Douglas always advocated for and that the NDP and our leader are proposing today.

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, the NDP are very much aware that in order for us to establish a national pharmacare program there is an obligation for the Government of Canada to work with our provinces and our territories. When the introducer of the motion came forward, he said that if the Province of Quebec wanted out, that it would not be a problem. Quebec could opt out of a national program.

Would the NDP advocate for that same treatment to be applied to other provinces? We have heard that Alberta wants to establish its own program. Would every other province and territory have to be part of the program, or would only Quebec be allowed to opt out?

Opposition Motion—PharmacareGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, Quebec already has a pharmacare program in place. It could be improved by having federal contributions, but it is up to the Quebec government to decide how to administer it and how to improve the program that already exists.

However, in other parts of the country where there is no universal pharmacare, there is a real interest from the provinces. This morning I met with the Minister of Finance for the Province of Ontario, a Progressive Conservative. His primary concern is addressing the woeful cuts in health care funding, which happened under the Harper Conservatives and continue under the current government. Provinces want to see full health care funding restored. Beyond that, of course they are interested.

What government would not be interested in a program that allows people right across the country to access the medications they need, that saves businesses money, that saves society as a whole a lot of money and that allows for bulk purchasing? In New Zealand bulk purchasing led, in some cases, to the cost of pharmaceuticals being reduced by 90%. This is a win-win-win.

Yes, of course, some of the insurance companies want to maintain their profits. However, the government and Parliament should be acting in the national interest. That is why we are calling upon all parliamentarians to vote yes on this motion today.