Debates of April 16th, 2024

Pharmacare Act

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, in relation to the question my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester asked the Minister of Health, I have a letter from a local dentist in my area and I am wondering if the member could refer to any similarities between the Canadian dental care plan and what is being rolled out in the pharmacare plan.

This dentist says that it may place our oral dental care system in serious jeopardy. He goes on to say that it is deeply flawed and stands to jeopardize our entire established system and how they deliver care to their patients. He said that only 70% of dentists have said they are likely to participate as a provider in the CDCP program. He went on to say that patients are going to be surprised to learn that dental care will not be free, they may not be able to choose their preferred dentists and nothing has been done to protect access to third party insurance.

I would ask my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester if he can outline more than he did in his speech, which was a great speech, by the way, any similarities he can see between this plan and the pharmacare plan.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that the NDP-Liberal coalition wants to create federated programs that are going to reduce choices for Canadians and push those who do have access to the beloved care they now have into programs that will cover much fewer medications. For instance, we know at the current time that public programs cover about half of the medications that privately funded plans do. That will reduce choice for Canadians.

What incentive will there be for employers to continue to provide plans for their hard-working employees in the future if a federated plan with a few old medications on it is what is being offered “for free” on the backs of all Canadians? Of course, we know that does not account for the bloated bureaucracy that it will take.

As I mentioned, just to create a new Canada drug agency, in and of itself, will cost at least $90 million. Even though my great colleague suggested that perhaps 70% of dentists may support it, we know from the figures now that only less than 10% of the 26,500 dentists in Canada have signed up for this program, which is severely limiting access for Canadians. Indeed, last week, in one day, four great supporters in Cumberland—Colchester showed up at my office and said they have a shiny card for the dental care program, but they cannot find a dentist to provide the care because of the terrible nature of this program, which was created without consultation with the great dentists who provide care to millions of Canadians across this country.

It is a shame. Liberals should be ashamed of their program and should be ashamed of the fact that they want to introduce another bloated federated program on the backs of hard-working Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind hon. members that we are debating the amendment.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, after what I have heard, I would like to begin my speech by commenting briefly on the answer given by the Conservative health critic, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Health. In his answer, he spoke strictly about the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces and made no mention of what kind of additional funding the Conservatives would provide for health transfers. If I understood him correctly, basically, the only real option Quebeckers have is the Bloc Québécois.

On one hand, we have the Liberal Party, which says that it will give the provinces money but only on its own terms and while infringing on their jurisdictions. The Liberals are duplicating programs and efforts. On the other hand, we have the Conservative Party, which says that it will not bother the provinces and will respect their jurisdictions but it will not give them a single cent more. That is the choice facing Canadian voters, except in Quebec, where they can vote for the Bloc Québécois.

I will begin my speech with a brief comment, and I hope that the Minister of Health will listen carefully to what I am saying. He always talks about the great discussions that he has with the Quebec health minister. I will come back to that a little later.

I want to begin by saying that in June 2019, the Quebec national state, through its National Assembly, with a single voice and across party lines, responded to this desire to implement coast-to-coast pharmacare. The National Assembly and the national state of the people of Quebec have not changed their position on this issue. The motion that was adopted the day after the Hoskins report reads as follows:

THAT it reaffirm the Government of Québec's exclusive jurisdiction over health;

THAT it also reaffirm that Québec has had its own general prescription insurance plan for 20 years;

I should point out that it has now been nearly 28 years.

THAT it indicate to the federal government that Québec refuses to adhere to a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;

THAT it ask the Government of Québec to maintain its prescription drug insurance plan and that it demand full financial compensation from the federal government if a project for a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan is officially tabled.

That is what is going on right now. This motion was moved in June 2019. The House passed a motion twice on recognizing Quebec as a nation. When we respect a nation as a national state, by allegedly giving it more than mere token recognition, then the least we can do is avoid the kind of heavy-handed approach taken by the current federal Liberal minister of health. We have to sit down respectfully with the people who administer a plan, which is not perfect.

In fact, I imagine that if the federal government was being stingy with the health transfers, it was because it wanted to funnel some of the money into pharmacare and dental insurance. We will talk about that later. In this case, the government should have come and sat down to see who has the expertise, learn how the Quebec system operates and arrange to provide the full compensation that Quebec is calling for, with no strings attached. In that regard, we need to stop all the speculation around what Quebec wants to do with the money.

Quebec’s health minister was very clear when he said, “we have no problem adding this money to the drug insurance program. But it has to be without conditions. It is not up to them to decide what the best drug coverage is for Quebeckers”.

His intention seems pretty clear. There is respect for Quebec symbolically. They call Quebec a nation to avoid looking foolish. When it comes down to it, though, this must not have any legislative consequences, period. The debate could end here if full compensation were offered. The bill provides for a list to be prepared. Earlier I asked the minister if he knew the list of drugs covered in Quebec, but he did not wish to answer my question. Do members know how many drugs are covered by Quebec’s drug insurance plan? The answer is 8,000. I wanted to bring this 792-page list, but I found it a bit heavy.

These sorcerers' apprentices would have us believe they will arrange all this in no time at all. They will create the Canadian drug agency while in Quebec, there is already infrastructure. Ottawa has so much money that they are going to create another structure. There will be a duplication of structures. Is the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux, or INESSS, not doing its job properly? It has been 28 years since Quebec has been making decisions, analyzing all the elements at a molecular level and determining whether these elements, many of which are innovative, are to be reimbursed. They are included in the list. Whether we are talking about the public part or the private part of this mixed plan, everyone has access to the same drugs.

This would have been a great opportunity to respect the Quebec nation. The Quebec national state and all its parties are asking for the same thing. The leader of the NDP, that progressive party, is lecturing us. He is completely out to lunch, though, when he says that the health problem in Quebec has to do with the fact that the government has not invested enough in health care. The Government of Quebec increased its budget by 50%. It has enacted reforms to try to do more with less. It implemented a number of reforms and a lot of structural modifications in an effort to achieve greater health efficiencies.

We have a partner that has not been putting enough money on the table. Then, a few years later, this same partner has the nerve to say that Quebec does not know how to manage its own health care system and tries to explain how it should be done. The first thing that partner should do is hand over the money. That would be a good starting point. Quebec's current resistance to all this federal interference should not be that hard to grasp. It is easy for the Prime Minister to say that he does not care about jurisdictions. The Prime Minister does not care about the Constitution. Well, let him reopen the Constitution, then. We will see if he really does not care. The government likes to lecture everyone else, but cannot even take care of its own people. That is the federal government. I will come back to that.

One might think this bill was well-intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the devil is in the details. I asked only one question: How many prescription drugs will be covered by the national public pharmacare program with a single universal payer? Will Quebec's list be used? Will Quebec have to take any prescription drugs off its list? Will INESSS be made redundant, or will it be able to continue doing its good work? Why is a Canadian agency being created to supersede the process we have in Quebec? We are not getting any answers to these questions. However, the minister claims he has maintained a very good dialogue with Quebec. I gave an example. I think the minister is having a dialogue of the deaf, where he listens only to himself and not the other party.

It seems to me that it was quite clear when Quebec's health minister, Christian Dubé, said, “we have no problem adding this money to the drug insurance program. But it has to be without conditions”. He then added the following:

The government is not only refusing to give us the money we asked for in health transfers, but it also wants to interfere in an area under Quebec's jurisdiction. The federal government knows full well that this is a provincial jurisdiction. We have had our own pharmacare program since 1997. That is almost 30 years. We also cover the widest range of prescription drugs of all the Canadian provinces.

The federal health minister just told us that he has very good conversations with him, even though the Premier of Quebec felt it necessary to hold a press conference to tell the federal Liberal government—which is in a coalition with the NDP and was not so centralist before the NDP got involved—to mind its own business. The minister just told us this morning that they have very good conversations, but when we stand up in question period, we are told that we are trying to pick a fight. All we are saying is that the federal government should mind its own business. We are only relaying the message from the National Assembly of Quebec, not from a single party but from all parties, on pharmacare.

The reason Ottawa has money in the first place is because of the fiscal imbalance. Well, we are going to enhance our own program. I challenge anyone here this morning to prove they could do a more competent job managing our program than those who are doing it right now in Quebec City. I challenge anyone willing to make that claim to go make their case to those managing the program and prove that they have the competence. I am talking not only about provincial competence in the jurisdictional sense, but also about incompetence. In that respect, I have a short list I will return to later.

Bill C-64 has put the cart before the horse, as the saying goes. Today, rather than sitting down, holding a summit, talking to people, looking at what was being done and coming up with something of substance, the government announced an intention of putting something in place. However, it did not talk to anyone, it is not open to anything without conditions, and it is saying that Quebec must march to the beat of Ottawa's drum.

This is not well intentioned; this is a political deal to stay in power until October 2025. That is what this bill is really about. That is what is behind it, because no one could be this keen to jump into as sensitive and critical a field as pharmacare.

Drugs in 2024 are not like they used to be in 1996 or 1997. We are not talking about codeine or Tylenol. We are talking about innovative molecules that often give rise to treatments that could potentially allow patients to avoid surgeries and transplants. A case in point is Trikafta for cystic fibrosis. Patients can take two pills and a glass of water a day, instead of being hospitalized for 280 or 320 days a year, instead of having to get a lung transplant. This drug needs to be covered. How will the list be compiled, and how can we trust the federal government, which starts things but then walks away?

After all, this is the government that pilfered from the EI fund and from workers and that never did the right thing by returning the money. This is the government that dumped the federal deficit on the provinces and cut health transfers in the mid-1990s. Jean Chrétien travelled the world, boasting to the G7 countries that all he had to do to balance his budget was cut health transfers and that the best part was that people were protesting in front of the Quebec National Assembly, not in front of the Parliament of Canada. That is what the federal government is like.

It is creating a program now, but how many years will it be before the government disengages because it got the math wrong, it is unable to manage the program properly, and the infrastructure is cumbersome and redundant, when the money should be on the ground, going directly to patients as quickly as possible?

The minister delivered a very nice speech, saying the governments get along really well, the principles are sound, the Quebec government wants to co-operate. In reality, the Quebec government's response was to ask Ottawa to mind its own business.

The federal government is not even capable of handling its own affairs properly. Think about the whole F-35 saga or the lack of investment in defence. Think about Phoenix, the borders, passports, asylum seekers. The national emergency stockpile was empty when the pandemic hit. The Global Public Health Intelligence Network had been dismantled and was ineffective at the start of the pandemic. The federal government should mind its own business and clean up its own house before lecturing us.

It lectures the provinces about health care management, but it is the worst employer for federal health employees. Communities under the federal government's jurisdiction are neglected. The funding Ottawa provides for public health care is insufficient, to be sure, but the federal government treats its employees worse than the provinces do. How it can then lecture anyone, I just do not know.

The bill seeks to put in place principles, and then, based on these principles, a list will be compiled. After this list is compiled, an agency and then a committee will be established. The government is so clueless about where it wants to go with this that it is tabling a bill to create a committee that will make recommendations for rolling out pharmacare. Bravo.

The Bloc Québécois is not opposed to state pharmacare. It already exists in Quebec. It is far from perfect, there are positives and negatives, but it does guarantee minimum coverage. What we are calling for is what the National Assembly has always demanded: the right to opt out with full compensation. Given how long Quebec has been administering pharmacare, if there was a real need elsewhere, I imagine others would have followed suit. However, that was not the case. We are going to ensure that no one is ever allowed to dismantle our system or reduce our coverage.

Medication is currently free for people aged 18 and under. The system is not perfect, of course, and there are certain fees involved. However, if we had the money, we could increase free coverage without compromising on the list of drugs we cover.

Does the federal government really know how much it is going to cost to make everything free from the first dollar invested? I am not sure these sorcerers' apprentices really know what they are doing. Based on the reaction of the National Assembly and the Quebec government, I am certain the federal government has never sat down with them to have a serious conversation about it. Quebec's example and expertise are not going to be on the agenda as the government implements its system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, many years ago, the Province of Saskatchewan implemented a policy and a program that ultimately led, in good part, to the national government recognizing how important it was to develop a national health care system.

As a direct result, over generations now, we have benefited from Canada's system. However, many people advocated, over the years, for a pharmacare component. What we are seeing today is historic legislation that would lead us to achieving that particular goal.

This is something that is universally shared across the country. People residing in every province understand and have faith in the Canada health system, whether they are in Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax or any municipality in between. There is a great deal of support for the federal government to be involved in health care. That is why we have the Canada Health Act.

Does the member not believe that Canada has more of a role to play than just being an ATM?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is our money. What I just heard is very insulting. My colleague talks about an ATM when it is the government that manages our taxes.

All that we are asking for, and what everyone is asking for, is that the Government of Canada make a substantial and recurring investment in health transfers instead of the insignificant amount that has been put on the table.

During the third wave of COVID-19, experts told us that the side effects of the pandemic on non-COVID-19 patients could take from five to eight years before subsiding. Right in the middle of the third wave, what did the government do? It supposedly waited until after the pandemic to give the provinces peanuts to care for their people. That is not only insulting, it is absolutely criminal.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his passionate and factual remarks opposing the costly Liberal-NDP coalition and all its ridiculous programs.

My question is this: When the Bloc Québécois has the opportunity, will it vote against the budget, the government and the costly coalition?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, we will look at the budget. Just yesterday, given Ottawa’s encroachments into areas of Quebec jurisdiction, the Bloc Québécois House leader said that we could not vote for this budget. We will indeed vote against the budget.

However, I will let our critics take a position on this. That is not my job, as I am the health critic. I will not presume to take anyone else's job. In principle, the Bloc Québécois should vote against this budget because it does not respect the Quebec national state or the Quebec nation.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the points he raised in his speech.

As a progressive jurisdiction, Quebec is recognized as having a stronger social safety net than what exists in most of Canada, including its drug insurance plan, child care program, housing and so forth. This is not by chance; it is clearly the result of the battles waged by Quebeckers over decades.

That being said, there are many Canadians who have fought to expand and strengthen the health system in the rest of Canada. I am proud of the work done by the NDP on pharmacare. We have major concerns when it comes to the promises made by the Liberals. We feel we have to make sure to expand the pharmaceutical services that Canadians are entitled to.

Does my colleague agree that Canadians should have these services? As the NDP said, should there be negotiations with the Government of Quebec?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that the NDP member appears to know more about Quebec society than her leader, who said that, if things are not going well with health care in Quebec, it is because we are not investing enough. Since 2018, Quebec's health care budget has actually increased from $40 billion to $59 billion. We are investing in health care. The problem is that the federal government is not doing enough.

If other provinces want to adopt a pharmacare plan, they are free to do so, but I would like to hear the NDP and the member explicitly say that Quebec should have the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Montcalm's speech was extremely interesting.

I have been listening to all this and observing the federal government's spending spree in provincial areas of jurisdiction over the past few weeks, which is obviously terrible. I wonder if the real problem we are having with this bill and with the way the NDP-Liberal government is behaving by investing in provincial areas of jurisdiction is not a tax collection problem. Quebec collects taxes from us taxpayers so it can provide services within its jurisdiction; the federal government also collects taxes for services within its jurisdiction, and it always says it has too much and will give some back, but with conditions.

Is the problem we have with the bill not the same problem we have with every bill that encroaches on the provinces' jurisdictions? In the end, is the solution not simply for the federal government to stop taking more money out of Quebeckers' pockets than necessary?

Perhaps Quebeckers should finally make the decision to leave Confederation.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, no one will be surprised to hear me say that, by continually oppressing us, by not recognizing that we are a national government, by making sure that any recognition is merely symbolic and has no legislative impact at all, the federal government is making sure that, one day, Quebeckers will decide to take control of their own affairs and make Quebec its own country.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to our monetary policy and how it relates to health care policy, I did some quick math: $1.2 trillion of national debt at a 4% interest rate would be $48 billion for annual servicing costs.

What does the member for Montcalm think the likelihood is that the Liberal promises about health care, dental care and now pharmacare would actually be successful in this environment of high debt servicing costs?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is not much time left until the election. The Liberals are incapable of hearing Quebec's demands, among other things. Quebec will not prevent the federal government from doing what it wants everywhere else, but it is warning the federal government to be careful, because Quebec requires the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation. I think that, if the federal government denies this, it will not have time to do anything.

If the next government is Conservative, as today's polls suggest, I think that there will not be much for health care. If I understood the Conservative Party's health critic correctly earlier, the Conservatives will not interfere or tell us what to do, but we will not get a penny.

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

Madam Speaker, to begin, I will respond to my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, because they do not seem to have read or listened to the Quebeckers who support this bill.

I will start by reading the statements issued by the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, or CSD, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, or CSQ, and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or FTQ. These labour federations represent one million Quebeckers. When we factor in the families of these workers, these federations represent more than one-third of Quebec's population.

The labour federations said that they:

...welcome the introduction of a pharmacare bill by the federal government to lay the foundation for a future universal public pharmacare program. Several aspects of this bill are encouraging, including the fact that it takes into account the principles of the Canada Health Act (public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility), maintains long-term federal funding, covers birth control and diabetes medication, and includes first dollar coverage.

I also want to quote the leaders of the labour federations. First, Luc Beauregard, secretary-treasurer of the CSQ, had this to say:

Quebeckers deserve better. They need a universal public pharmacare plan as soon as possible.

Next, Magali Picard, president of the FTQ, said this:

With the rising cost of living, many Quebeckers are struggling to make ends meet. Every year, more than one person in 10 goes without prescription drugs because they cannot afford them. That sort of situation should not be tolerated. Medication should be free, because no one chooses to be sick and to need medication.

I would like to mention that “[t]he labour federations believe that Quebec is misguided in calling for an unconditional right to opt out.”

Caroline Senneville, president of the CSN, had this to say:

We feel it would be unacceptable for Quebec to receive federal funds unconditionally in order to maintain a dysfunctional and unfair system...

Finally, Luc Vachon, president of the CSD, had this to say:

It is unacceptable for a person's health to depend on their income or to be up for negotiation. Quebec has its own system, but it discriminates against those with lower incomes. A real universal public system must guarantee everyone the right to easily access medication. There is a strong consensus in both Quebec and Canada on the implementation of a universal public pharmacare program, and the time has come to move beyond constitutional squabbling so that everyone has real access to affordable medication.

Again, the leaders of Quebec's largest labour federations have been clear. They represent more than one-third of Quebec's population.

We just heard the Bloc Québécois's arguments against this bill. I am asking them very nicely to listen to Quebeckers rather than assuming that they know what Quebeckers think. The Bloc Québécois does not like to hear that this bill represents what Quebeckers really want. The reality is that these are the voices in Quebec that the Bloc Québécois should be listening to.

It is no secret that Quebec's current system is not working. People are falling through the cracks. This bill, which the NDP pushed for and which is before the House because of the NDP, will make a difference in the lives of Quebeckers and Canadians across the country.

That is my message to my Bloc Québécois colleagues. It is difficult to be against Bill C-64 after hearing all those people who have looked at it and want us to move forward with it. They want us to help those who have trouble paying for their diabetes medication, as well as the low-income people who are falling through the cracks. It is something worth thinking about. I hope that my Bloc Québécois colleagues will hear these voices and act accordingly by voting in favour of the bill. They cannot just be reactionary like the Conservatives.

First, I want to about the impact of pharmacare. A little over three years ago, I brought forward, on behalf of the NDP caucus, the Canada pharmacare act. This would have made a difference in the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. There were 120,000 Canadians who wrote to their members of Parliament, hundreds of them wrote to each Conservative MP and systematically the Conservatives and Liberals voted against that bill, which would have established, on the basis of the Canada Health Act and its five principles of universal health care, pharmacare in Canada.

For me, this is poetic justice. Three years later now, because of the NPD's pressure, the work of the leader of the NDP, my colleague from Burnaby South, our health critic at the time, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, and the entire NDP caucus, using our weight and our pressure in a minority Parliament, we have actually achieved something that will make a significant difference in the lives of people.

The Conservatives have said that diabetes and contraception is only a start, which is very true, but the reality is that when we talk about diabetes medication, the cost of having diabetes, which is a profound health challenge, can be up to $900 a month. I cited a little earlier that a resident of Burnaby, B.C., Amber Malott, pays $900 a month.

Each and every Conservative MP has in their riding 17,000 people to 18,000 people who would be impacted by this significant move forward in Canadian health care. They would benefit from that. The ones who are paying anywhere from $100 a month to even $900 a month finally have that burden taken off them.

The Conservatives have signalled they want to gut it. They blocked the bill last week and refused to even have it brought to the floor of the House of Commons. They have indicated that they will try to block and destroy this legislation at every step. We have to ask the question, why? Is it just weird ideology, is it just their extremist leader or is it the fact that they have not even read the legislation and have not consulted their constituents? If they talked to 17,000 people or 18,000 people in each of their ridings, they would find those constituents saying that we need to adopt legislation, that they cannot continue to pay $200 a month, or $500 a month or $900 a month for medication, that they simply cannot afford to put food on the table or keep a roof over their heads and pay for this medication at the same time.

If the Conservatives consulted their constituents, they would hear overwhelmingly from those 17,000 people or 18,000 people that this would make a difference in their lives. I certainly will be going out to Conservative ridings and consulting their constituents, because they seem unwilling to do so. For them to block the bill and to say that they do not even want it discussed on the floor of the House of Commons indicates their extremism within—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members there will be an opportunity for 10 minutes of questions and comments. If hon. members have questions and comments, they know they should wait until the appropriate time to ask them.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, from the reaction of the Conservatives, it is obvious they are a little worried about this. They know that they have not consulted their constituents. They have not talked to them.

The Conservatives love to say that they are concerned about affordability. We recall that under the dismal, terrible Harper regime, food line-ups and the price of housing doubled. They say that Liberals did the same thing, but the reality is that the Conservatives, at no point, have ever taken responsibility for what they imposed on Canadians. At least the Liberals are willing to accept NDP leadership to bring forward things that will benefit people, such as dental care, affordable housing and, now, pharmacare.

If the Conservatives are sensitive about this, if they are saying that do not want people talking to their constituents, the 17,000 to 18,000 people who would benefit from having their diabetes medication and devices taken care of, we have to wonder about their motivation. They do not want to consult their constituents themselves and they do not want anybody else to consult their constituents. They just want to, in a disconnected way, make their speeches in the House of Commons, without actually talking to the people who would benefit from the bill.

We have to wonder about the kind of responsibility the Conservatives take as elected representatives, particularly given how deplorable their record was when in government. Under the Harper regime, it was the worst government in Canadian history. I could easily spend hours speaking to that, and in fact I did.

As members will recall, I spoke for 14 hours about the 2012 budget and the appalling impacts of that budget on Canadians, on Canadian seniors and on environmental policy. I could literally speak for hours about the scandals, the dishonesty, the lack of transparency and the brutality of the Harper regime; about what it did to seniors, forcing them to work longer; what it did to veterans by shutting off all their services. However, I am going to leave that for today. Hopefully, at some future time, we can really remind Canadians how dismal and terrible the Harper regime was. The Conservatives who were there should be ready to apologize, but they have never apologized for everything they did.

Here is an opportunity for the Conservatives to address the wrongs when they were in government, when housing prices doubled, when they slashed affordable housing and when they ensured that services were gutted. They have an opportunity to address some of those things, and they are saying no. They are refusing to provide pharmacare or have any kinds of supports for the people in their ridings, the 17,000 or 18,000 people in each of their ridings who would benefit from having their diabetes medication covered. They are saying that they do not want to help their constituents at all. That is a sad thing.

The reality is that this bill on pharmacare would make a big difference, on average, for every member of Parliament, not just the Conservatives. Every member of Parliament in the House of Commons would see 17,000 to 18,000 of their constituents benefit. The people who are struggling to pay for their diabetes medication, to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head would benefit. Imagine the cost of up to $900 a month, and we are talking about a $10,000 benefit, yet the Conservatives say that they are not interested.

There is more. This is where we get back to three years ago when this was brought forward in the House of Commons. The Conservatives and Liberals, with alacrity, voted down the Canada pharmacare bill. Thankfully, the Liberals are now apologizing for that by bringing forward and supporting the pharmacare bill.

As we know, with pharmacare writ large, and the Parliament Budgetary Office has indicated this so many times, the overall savings to Canadians would be about $4 billion. The savings to our health care system are enormous. Many of the people who end up in our emergency wards across the country are there because they cannot afford to pay for their medication that keeps them in good health.

Canada is the only country that has universal health care, thanks to Tommy Douglas and the NDP fighting hard for it in the 1960s, but does not have universal pharmacare.

Why is it that every other country has coupled universal health care with universal pharmacare? It is that having access to medication beyond the hospital makes good sense for the health care system as a whole. If someone can take the medication their doctor prescribes for them to keep them in good health, they are not going to spend their time in the acute care ward or the emergency ward at the hospital. We know what those costs are. An acute care bed over the course of a week is $30,000.

Why would we not put pharmacare in place in a way that allows someone to stay in good health and to stay out of the hospital? That is why the Parliamentary Budget Officer stressed not only the savings to the health care system, but also the savings that come from bulk purchasing negotiations that have led other countries like New Zealand to reduce the cost of some of its medications by up to 90%.

It is no longer a multitude of hundreds of different negotiations taking place where the pharmaceutical companies can play one against the other. With a universal pharmacare system, we can tell the pharmaceutical companies what prices we are going to pay. When New Zealand reduced the cost of some of its medications by 90%, that was due to bulk purchasing being the best practice.

Conservatives will not talk about this at all because, quite frankly, I find most Conservatives are mathematically challenged. When it comes to budgets, they simply do not do it well. We saw it under the Harper regime and its record deficits. They are terrible when it comes to managing money and to paying down debt.

According to a stellar source, the Ministry of Finance, in its fiscal period returns, actually compared NDP governments with Conservative and Liberal governments at the provincial and the federal levels. NDP governments, over the last 40 years, have been the best at managing money and at ensuring money goes into the health care system for things like that.

Rather than paying money to the pharmaceutical companies, we need to be negotiating cheaper prices and making sure it is accessible to everybody, which then saves money in the health care system. It means fewer stays in acute care beds and fewer visits to emergency wards. It makes sense, which is why other countries have universal health care and universal pharmacare.

This is the first important step to universal pharmacare. It is to ensure that people who are forced to take diabetes medication and who need access to diabetes devices actually have them paid for and no longer have to question whether they can pay for them. If they cannot pay for them, they end up in the hospital and it costs our health care system far more than having pharmacare in place. It just makes good sense.

It is not just that people who cannot afford to pay for their medication end up in acute care beds and in emergency wards, but Canadian nurses have been telling us for years that, tragically, hundreds of Canadians die every year because they cannot afford to pay for the medication that would keep them alive. That is hundreds of Canadians.

This has been a crisis in our health care system. People cannot afford to pay for their medication, so they go to the hospital and cost the health care system more with an acute care bed, but worse, they also pass away. That creates even more mourning in the health care system. We simply should not be willing to tolerate that.

Conservatives and Liberals, for decades, have said that it is not their problem. They were not going to take charge of it. Thankfully, the Liberals, and I do compliment the Minister of Health for stepping up on this, are finally moving forward with the first step of pharmacare in Canada. This is vitally important.

Professionals in the health care system say that this is the smart thing to do. Financially, we know it costs $4 billion less to have a pharmacare program in place than it would to continue with the patchwork we have now. If we could save hundreds of lives, then all these things make sense. It should not even be a matter of controversy. This should be adopted at all stages and adopted by all members of Parliament.

As I mentioned, 17,000 to 18,000 Canadians, in every riding in the country, would benefit from just having access to the diabetes medication that is prescribed in the bill. The NDP is happy to see this first step taken. We are not going to give up. We are going to keep pushing. I have constituents who are paying $1,000 a month for heart medication, and that is going to be the next push for us. However, we believe strongly that the House should be adopting the bill. We should move it to committee, and we should get going with putting in place the first steps of pharmacare in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have often witnessed a sad thing in Manitoba, where individuals who go into hospital situations require medications after they leave the hospital. While they are in the hospital, the medication is free, but when they leave, they have to cover their own costs for medications. That puts many people, especially those on fixed incomes, in positions where they have to decide on food versus medicine. Ultimately, they end up going back to the hospital because they are not taking the medications that they should be taking.

When I think of the long term and how we evolve and develop a pharmacare program, we should be reflecting on what it initially meant when we brought in a national health care system, and there was always the thought of having a pharmacare component to it. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on how important it is that we recognize this as is a stepping stone moving forward into a stronger and healthier health care system.

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

Madam Speaker, I often disagree with the member for Winnipeg North, as he disagrees with me, but on this issue, we are in solidarity because he is absolutely right. We are wasting tax dollars on a health care system that has been dysfunctional. When a person goes to a hospital due to a medical emergency, medication is paid for. Then, the moment they leave, it is up to them, and they are on their own. If they have to scrimp on food or have to move out of their apartment to pay for that medication, it is up to them. The reality for so many Canadians, for hundreds who die every year, is that they simply cannot afford to do all those things. It is time that we put in place pharmacare, and it is time that we start extending it to other types of medications.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is not a pharmacare plan; this is a PR exercise by an NDP-Liberal coalition that is floundering in the polls. There is a reason that almost a quarter of the NDP MPs are not seeking re-election.

The member is from British Columbia, as am I also. As he was speaking, I was looking up what the plan is for pharmacare in B.C. It says, specifically, that pharmacare covers approved diabetes management supplies and most insulin. It is already covered. The plan being proposed does not even compare.

I wonder if the member will also mention that, due to inflationary spending, we have to pay $50 billion in interest and that it is actually undermining health care across Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member has just made my point.

Yes, B.C. is already moving. It is the leader in the country in terms of affordable housing, with more housing built in British Columbia than in the rest of the country combined. It is a leader in the country in environmental legislation, in health care investments and in post-secondary education. Therefore, the member is absolutely right to point out that the B.C. NDP government is doing the best job in the country of any government, and we appreciate that he is acknowledging that. The point is that we want to bring these best practices from B.C. and put them in place right across the country.

The member also mentioned deficits. I find it rich that any Conservative would talk about deficits after their deplorable record of $30 billion a year given to overseas tax havens. Under the Harper tax haven treaties, it was $30 billion. Over their watch, it was $300 billion. They have been absolutely deplorable in financial management, and we are still paying the cost today.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out what the NDP member did, that is, highlight the exemplary work of Quebec's labour federations, which fought for years for Quebec to implement universal pharmacare. We succeeded. For 20 years, I took part in the fight that led to the implementation of the pharmacare plan Quebec has today. The plan is not perfect, but it is false to claim that Canada is going to create a pharmacare plan without taking the reality of Quebec and the provinces into account.

If my colleague were honest, he could also have said that the labour federations called for the right to opt out with full compensation. It says so in their statements. However, the NDP does not care about that because it wants social programs that extend from coast to coast to coast. We know that New Zealand has a population of five million. Canada has a population of 34 million, and this number will continue to grow.

If the federal government does not respect the provinces' jurisdictions, in particular when it comes to administering social programs and programs like health care, that goes totally against what Canada stands for.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois should apologize for trying to distort what I just said. Caroline Senneville, president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, said the following: “The labour federations believe that Quebec is misguided in calling for an unconditional right to opt out.”

Luc Vachon, president of the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, said that “the time has come to move beyond constitutional squabbling”.

The reality is that all of these labour federations, which represent one million workers in Quebec, which amounts to almost one-third of Quebec's population, said that they welcomed the introduction of a pharmacare bill. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois should take responsibility by supporting the bill and sending it to committee so that we can move forward with the bill, which the labour federations welcome.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was fascinating to watch the Conservatives put up their doctor who just trashed the notion of medical treatment, not with any facts, but with those kinds of bumper-sticker slogans: four legs good, two legs bad. I was trying to understand how a doctor could be so dismissive of basic health care. Then, of course, it dawned on me that the Conservatives' deputy leader was a lobbyist for AbbVie. That was a company that jacked up its medical prices for seniors by over 470%, so we know what the Conservatives would do with seniors and medical treatment. They do not want seniors to get pharmacare. Then, we also find out that the Conservative Party's governing body is full of lobbyists for big pharma.

I'd like to ask my hon. colleague why the Conservative MPs and their one doctor are so concerned about protecting the interests of companies that they worked for that have jacked up medical costs on basic pharmacare for seniors.