House of Commons Hansard #300 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was diabetes.

Topics

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is important for us to reflect on what has transpired in the House. You will recall there was a member from Regina who absolutely insulted a member. His entire question was given back to him. However, when there was the disruption of the back bench, from some who do not have the privilege of asking questions of the House, and they decided to interrupt my question, I did not receive the opportunity to ask it in full. It is at that point when the intervention happened.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Some hon members

Oh, oh!

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, if it is on the question of disruption, I would ask you to note the heckling and the disorder that is happening in the House right now. I encourage you to reflect on what you just did to the member, this hon. member from our party, when these people continue to act completely out of order in the House.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus

Colleagues, we are coming back to the point of why it is so important for us to conduct ourselves with dignity in this place.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre has raised an important point. I would like to point out to the hon. member that the Chair did hear his question up until a certain point. Then, not being able to hear the hon. member, as I mentioned from the chair, I gave the hon. member more time to finish his question. First, I sought order in the House, and then I gave the hon. member more time to finish his question and to start further on. The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, at the top end of the question, used language that was uncomplimentary, and I asked him to rephrase his question, which he did.

It is very difficult to sit in this chair and have members act in a way that is really not befitting of this place. Sometimes the Chair raises the issue when the Chair feels compelled to do so. Sometimes members raise the issue, and when members raise the issue, that is the time when the Chair has to deal with it.

As a result, it was with great regret that I asked the member for North Island—Powell River to leave this place for the day because it was requested of the Chair to ask for her comment to be withdrawn so that order could be restored to the House. This was raised by the member for Abbotsford. That is the only reason that happened.

I ask all members to remind themselves that, once again, the Chair can only go as far as members will permit the Chair to go. It requires members to act in a manner that is befitting of this place. I think we all can learn from this situation.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it is not up to any individual member to try to get the respect in the House that the Conservatives consistently refuse to show, so I would ask you to use the tools that you have available to you.

We have granted you the ability to dock questions. When Conservatives are causing disorder, as they do so frequently, I would ask you to exercise the powers you have to dock their questions so that members, such as the member for North Island—Powell River, are not forced to intervene to try to stop them from allowing us to ask questions in the House of Commons.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus

I thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for that intervention. Indeed, the Chair is increasingly reaching that point where, with proper warning, we will probably start moving that way. I hope I do not have to. I hope that members will be able to conduct themselves in a way that is befitting of this place.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the NDP House leader, the member for Timmins—James Bay and the member for Hamilton Centre, and we can check everyone off the list, are members of the fourth party in the House, and they create the same level of disorder as all members do. They engage in heckling, as is happening right now, but that is part of the customs that have been adopted by this place.

The matter at hand is that the Speaker made a ruling, and now, in succession, we have had NDP members standing up to chastise the Speaker for ruling the wrong way. That is not how it works in this place. Members of the official opposition, when asked to withdraw, in spite of their continuing to hold the convictions of what they said, out of deference to the Chair, have withdrawn and apologized. When they have not done so at any point in history, they have been ejected, and that is how this place works. We do not have every member then stand up and challenge the Chair's ruling because, frankly, that is unparliamentary and unbefitting of any member who does.

Order has been restored with the Chair's ruling. We thank you for that.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus

I thank the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for his intervention.

Once again, I call on all members, because this is happening, unfortunately, far too often, and it causes disorder. It is not something Canadians appreciate. I do not think any member of Parliament who has spent a lot of time and effort to represent their constituents, to come this place to help pass laws, make laws and keep government to account, wants to participate in a place with behaviour that, frankly, would not be accepted in any other workplace in the country. I thank the hon. member. I hope that will serve as a purpose to encourage all members to conduct themselves in a better way.

I see the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, a very passionate and contributing member, standing on her feet on the point of order. I hope it will add a new dimension to this debate.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, we have had the occasion to speak about exactly what is going on in the House.

I have to say that, on Thursday of last week, I felt that I behaved in an unparliamentary way as well, but it is because it is out of control on the Conservative side of the bench, with the constant toxic masculinity, including the harassment of the member for Nunavut, which I found so offensive.

What I find shocking, with all due respect, is that this is the first occasion when this kind of severe response has been taken, yet there is a normalization of gender-based violence being perpetrated by Conservative members on that side. It happens every single day in the House, all day.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus

I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable wants to speak on the same topic, and I will allow him to do so, but I hope that we will be able to wrap up this debate, unless members have something new to add.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, in the past 15 minutes, you have allowed several members, in particular the New Democrats, to tell their side of the story, and astoundingly, they have tried to challenge your decision to ask the member for North Island—Powell River to leave the House.

Since then, the NDP members have started lobbing accusations at the Conservative Party. These accusations are unfounded and unwarranted. I would therefore ask the member who just spoke to retract her remarks about these unfounded accusations or to make her case. It is an insult to all parliamentarians to insinuate such things about the Conservatives, and I will not repeat her remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable that you tolerated her intervention until the end. Her remarks about the Conservative member are unacceptable. With all due respect, I request that you ask the member to retract her remarks and apologize for her vile comments about us.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus

I thank the member for Mégantic—L'Érable for raising the matter. I will certainly think about it and take the matter under advisement.

I see the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who had gotten up alongside the member for Windsor West, so I am going to ask the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to go first, and then I will go to the member for Windsor West.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, as an individual, I know that passions can run high in this place; I think all parliamentarians would fully acknowledge that. When a circumstance arose in which I had to face a consequence when the Deputy Speaker was in the chair, I certainly respected the ruling. I did not challenge that ruling, and I left this place.

I would also urge you, Mr. Speaker, to likewise consider the way that, when passions were running high in debate and the member for Kildonan—St. Paul had made a comment, my colleague from Manitoba respected the Chair.

It is very unfortunate that the NDP would make such accusations. Certainly, if one starts going through the list, as mentioned before, there has been significant harassment, especially toward some of my female colleagues in the Conservative Party, including from members of the NDP. It is unfortunate that there would be those accusations levelled at the Conservative Party, when the fundamental issue at stake here is respect for the chair and the institution it represents within this place.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus

I thank the hon. member. We are now getting into accusations of he said, she said or they said, they said. This has been raised. The Chair clearly understands it.

The member for North Island—Powell River left the chamber on the request of the Chair. She has not come back in here to debate this matter, nor did the member for Battle River—Crowfoot when he was ejected by the Chair some months ago.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

April 16th, 2024 / 3:30 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not like to rise on this. In a couple of weeks it will be my 22nd year here, and I can tell the House that it is different. It is not heckling or a sense of involvement in the debate; outright bullying tactics and verbal abuse are taking place. This chamber has changed significantly.

Because of your being on that side, down the aisle of the chamber, Mr. Speaker, you may not be aware of this, but I can also testify that it depends on which member rises in the House, what gender they are and what they look like. This determines how they are treated. It is a regular behaviour that has escalated significantly in the last number of years.

In particular, right now, there was your decision about the member from Hamilton Centre, for example. He had an important question to ask. I appreciate your position on it, but he cannot do in 20 seconds what he should have had the right, in 35 seconds, to do, for his constituents and for what he wants to do for this country, without the type of harassment that takes place.

I ask you to review not only what takes place in this chamber and how you respond to it, to reflect back over the years and the way it has been dealt with in the past, but also the behaviour that takes place behind the curtains, in the hallways. They are definitely included, and what takes place there spills into the chamber. Especially during late nights in this place, we have had young people exposed to behaviour that is not becoming. It is not acceptable in a workplace to have a number of different activities taking place that are especially encouraged when the camera is off, clearly, and that may not be seen when the camera is on.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus

I thank the member for Windsor West for his intervention.

I thank all colleagues for standing and raising these issues.

Once again, I think this shows the importance of conducting ourselves in a better manner. Most members do conduct themselves in a way that is befitting. Sometimes, we go over the limit. I call on all members to reflect on what has happened today and in the past, so we can do better going forward.

I thank all members for their participation in that.

Correction to Official RecordPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, this morning in debate, when I was asking a question of my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester, I used the word “likely” when I should have said “unlikely”. I just wondered if I could have that noted.

Correction to Official RecordPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus

I thank the hon. member for clarifying.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was not sure I would get the opportunity to speak this afternoon, so I am glad to be able to join in debate on a very important bill, Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare.

Bill C-64 represents the next phase of our government's commitment to establishing a national universal pharmacare program. It proposes the foundational principles of the first phase of national universal pharmacare and our intent to work with provinces and territories to provide universal, single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications. This is an important step forward in improving health equity, affordability and outcomes, and it has the potential to provide long-term savings in our very endangered health care system.

Public health care in Canada was built on the promise that, no matter where one lives or what one earns, one will always be able to get the medical care one needs. Despite this promise, Canada is the only country in the world with universal health care that does not provide universal coverage for prescription drugs. In the bill, we talk specifically about contraception and the things needed for diabetes. They are very important aspects of this program.

When medicare was first introduced, prescription drugs outside of hospitals cost less and played a smaller role in health care. Today, prescription drugs are an essential part of our health, helping to control chronic conditions, treat temporary ones, and aid in overall health and well-being. We need to work harder to get those costs reduced.

One area that has seen significant change is diabetes treatment, as mentioned earlier by the minister and by other colleagues. Over 100 years ago, thanks to a Canadian team of researchers, Frederick Banting, Charles Herbert Best, John J.R. Macleod and James Bertram Collip, insulin was discovered. Since this monumental scientific discovery, there have been several advancements in diabetes treatment, from the introduction of fully synthetic human insulin to glucose monitors and insulin pumps.

These breakthroughs have improved quality of life immensely for people living with diabetes, whether it is by enhancing their self-esteem, increasing social participation, or improving overall health and well-being. Through hard work, one colleague in the House brought forward a program for a national diabetes strategy. These breakthroughs have come with higher costs, creating new affordability challenges for Canadians.

Outside of hospital, prescription drug coverage comes from a mix of private insurance, out-of-pocket cash payments and various provincial programs. While the majority of Canadians have access to some form of public or private insurance, about 2.8%, or 1.1 million Canadians, do not. We constantly hear just how expensive everything is in and around the diabetes forum on a monthly basis for an individual.

Although most Canadians have some form of drug coverage, as I mentioned, this does not mean that those with insurance have equal access to the prescription drugs they need. The existing patchwork system of private and public drug plans leaves millions of Canadians under-insured. That is, their out-of-pocket prescription drug costs create a financial burden that leaves them struggling to afford an essential part of health care.

In 2021, Statistics Canada found that more than one in every five adults in Canada reported not having the insurance they needed to cover their prescription costs. They had to decide whether they were going to fill their prescription or buy dinner.

Under-insurance can take many forms. For example, Canadians may have high deductibles, resulting in significant out-of-pocket costs before their insurance coverage even kicks in; they may reach the maximum annual or lifetime coverage limits for their insurance and have to pay out-of-pocket; or they may have high co-payments, which are often more than 20% of the drug's cost on private plans and sometimes more on public plans.

All provinces have drug coverage to protect Canadians from catastrophic drug costs, but deductibles under these plans can range from 0% to 20% of net family income. In many cases, Canadians will never reach the deductible, leaving them without any support for their drug costs. This variability across the country creates a postal code lottery.

We can again consider the advancements in diabetes treatments. For a working-age Canadian with no private insurance, out-of-pocket costs vary widely. In some parts of the country, out-of-pocket costs for people living with type 1 diabetes can be higher than $18,000 per year out-of-pocket; for type 2 diabetes, they can be higher than $10,000 per year in out-of-pocket expenses. Even those with private insurance can face high co-pays or exceed annual plan maximums, resulting in high out-of-pocket costs.

Even for cases in which an individual is not accessing devices that cost thousands of dollars, they can face significant out-of-pocket costs. For example, we can consider a woman in her mid-twenties who is working a minimum wage job. An IUD, one of the most effective forms of birth control, can cost up to $500 with no insurance. Even with private insurance, a co-pay of 20% would be $100. While IUDs can last from three to 12 years and save money over the long term, the high upfront cost can make them inaccessible.

Under-insurance can be a particular concern for young adults, who age out of their parents' private insurance but do not have their own form of private coverage. Lower-income Canadians also make up a disproportionate share of the under-insured. While most provinces have put drug coverage in place for those accessing social assistance benefits, a gap clearly persists. Many lower-income households that do not qualify for social assistance continue to struggle with out-of-pocket prescription drug costs.

Employment factors contribute to differences in insurance coverage. People with low-paying jobs, such as entry-level, contract and part-time positions, often report less adequate drug insurance coverage. This may even discourage people who are accessing social assistance benefits from applying for jobs: Once hired, they may lose their public drug coverage, but many entry-level and part-time jobs do not offer drug benefits. One study found that only 27% of part-time employees reported receiving medical benefit coverage.

Under-insurance can have serious consequences. Many Canadians with high out-of-pocket costs report forgoing essential needs, such as food and heat, or not adhering to their prescriptions because of the costs they have to pay. Statistics Canada also found that, in 2021, close to one in five Canadians spent $500 or more out-of-pocket for their prescription medication; almost one in 10 reported not adhering to their prescription medication because of costs. This includes delaying filling prescriptions or skipping doses in order to save money.

When people do not take their prescription drugs the way they are supposed to, their health can suffer, and this results in serious consequences for the individual and their household. It also results in unnecessary costs to the health care system, as patients are more likely to visit an emergency room and be admitted to hospital. For example, the full cost of diabetes to the health care system in 2018 was estimated to be around $27 billion, and it could exceed $39 billion by 2028.

I think we can all agree that no Canadian should be put in a position where they must choose between the prescription drugs they need for their health and well-being and putting food on the table. This is unacceptable, and it is why we are continuing our work to improve accessibility, affordability and appropriate use of prescription drugs as we move forward with national universal pharmacare.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to a very important bill, as we start the debate and move towards to the legislation passing in this House.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting speech. Once again, it would appear that the Liberals are suffering from counting problems today.

That being said, we have often heard today about the number of insulins covered on this fantasy pharmacare program proposed by the NDP-Liberal costly coalition. We know, clearly, that in British Columbia, on their formulary, there are 17 insulins covered, and on this program there are only nine. Again, we come back to the magical number of eight, which is how many insulins are not covered by this program. I thought I would give the answer to the member before there is difficulty answering the question, as there has been all day.

I would also like to ask a question. For a cash-paying customer paying for birth control pills, how much would that be a month? Certainly the numbers are not adding up once again.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, this is a new program that is being introduced. I cannot tell the House how pleased I am that it is here.

I have heard from my constituents, whether they are interested in the issue of diabetes support or in talking about contraception opportunities. At the end of the day, this would save lives and a lot of money. It would also make our country far more understanding and appreciative of what people are suffering. When we talk about affordability, we need to start by helping people with their drug costs.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. She is the chair of the committee I sit on. We have often worked together in the past four and a half years, almost five. I have sat on the same committee since I first came to the House, so I have had the opportunity to work with the chair.

I will digress briefly, if I may. I urge her to table the motion we adopted last Tuesday as soon as possible. It has been a week now, and it would be nice to see it tabled in the House as soon as possible.

Now that I have said that, here is my question.

Quebec is certainly not against pharmacare, seeing as we have our own plan and are very good at public programs. Why would it be so difficult to include a right to opt out with full financial compensation that would allow us to receive our share of the money and improve our existing programs? That would make everyone happy.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member's first question was regarding a report. The member can rest assured that I will report the motion to the House at the first opportunity I have to do so.

On to the issue of Bill C-64, this is the beginning. It is a new program. We expect that there will be times for alterations as to how we do things. We will continue to work with the provinces on how we do the rollout of this plan. I think the best thing the member could do would be to work with all of us, and all of the parties in the House, to see that this legislation, Bill C-64, gets passed as soon as it can.

Pharmacare ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, certainly New Democrats support investments in pharmacare. We support the national dental care plan, which is bitterly opposed by the lobbyists in the Conservative ranks.

We have to look at larger issues of health care. I want to speak about indigenous health care, particularly children's health care. The government has spent millions of dollars fighting against the implementation of Jordan's principle at the Human Rights Tribunal, yet we still see, time after time, the government refusing to pay in a timely manner for children who need treatment in all manner of areas. We have therapists who simply cannot keep the lights on because the federal government refuses to pay.

Does the member not understand that these are obligations that were ordered by the Human Rights Tribunal, and that if we are going to provide health care, it has to be done in a timely manner for the vulnerable indigenous children covered under Jordan's principle?