Debates of May 22nd, 2024

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: S-16, an act respecting the recognition of the Haida Nation and the Council of the Haida Nation.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Correctional Service of Canada; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Diversity and Inclusion; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Innovation, Science and Industry.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 39, I move:

That debate be not further adjourned.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question and answer period.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government side why it felt the need to do this, to shut down debate on a gag order, because Motion No. 39 is a gag order being directed at the Standing Committee on Health. I will also remind members, before they give me talking points, that just two days before Motion No. 39 was tabled before the House, the Minister of Health said, “there will be time for the committee to conduct a study.” He continued to say, “Yes, it is important to debate. However, there is plenty of time for debate in committee and during the rest of the House process.”

What is the truth? Why is the government moving to a gag order on the gag order?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed programming motion contemplates several hours of committee study. What is also important for the House to understand and for Canadians who are watching to understand is that when we are talking about pharmacare and a precedential expansion of the medical system envelope provided in this country, we are talking about a significant feature that will help promote better health care outcomes, more equality for Canadians and specifically give women reproductive rights and reproductive control over their bodies through the provision of free contraception.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would join me in imploring the Conservatives to actually stand up for their constituents. There are 18,000 constituents in each and every Conservative riding in the country who would benefit from the diabetes aspect of the pharmacare program that the NDP has pushed forward and forced the government to put on the table. There are 25,000 people on average in each Conservative riding who would benefit from contraception. We are not asking Conservative MPs to even lift a finger. They do not have to do any work at all for all these benefits to flow to their constituents. All we are asking is for Conservatives to stop blocking legislation that is going to save lives and is going to help people. We are not asking them to do any work. They do not have to do anything at all. All they have to do is stop blocking.

Will Conservatives stop blocking stuff that actually helps their constituents, thousands of their constituents?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly there are many reasons to get behind this kind of legislation, but there is also an economic reason. I appeal to the red Tories who are standing opposite right now. On the diabetes stats alone, unnecessary costs are incurred from lost productivity and elevated health care system use due to diabetes and its complications, which include heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, blindness and amputation. If we provide diabetes medication free of charge, we can save an estimated $27 billion to $39 billion in our health care system in this country by 2028. That makes fiscal sense, not to mention ethical sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that if we take a look at the whole concept of a national pharmacare program where diabetes is being highlighted and the many different benefits that society would receive, it is there, and it is very tangible, as the minister just made reference to. The concern that I have is that the Conservatives have made it known that they do not support it, which means that they are prepared to do whatever it takes to prevent the bill from passing. I am wondering if the minister could provide his thoughts on the importance of the legislation passing.

Without using this particular tool within the government, the Conservatives would not allow the bill to pass.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contributions today and every day in this chamber. What I would say is that it is critical. It is critical for basic equality. It is critical for basic things such as women's control over their own bodies and their reproductive rights. I know that that this can sometimes be a divisive issue on that side of the House and, in particular, within that caucus.

On this side of the House and among progressive parties that are represented in this chamber, it is not controversial whatsoever. We stand by a woman's ability to control her body, to control her reproductive processes, and if that means providing free contraception, that is exactly what we will do with this bill, and we will proceed with haste to achieve that goal.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yet again we see the government seize an opportunity to block debate on an important bill. We could have analyzed the government's intention to once again interfere, through this bill, in areas of jurisdiction that belong to the provinces and Quebec. However, by blocking debate and cutting our time short with a closure motion, the government is stopping us from having these very important conversations.

It is one more opportunity for the government to encroach on health care, which is Quebec's jurisdiction. Quebec is perfectly ready and able to take responsibility for its own social, health care support and insurance programs.

I would like the minister to reassure us. I know this is a topic that the Bloc Québécois comes back to a lot, but interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction is a concern for many Quebeckers. Although the debate will be cut short, will the minister still listen to Quebec's demands? Quebec demands the right to opt out with full compensation from programs like the one we are discussing today, namely pharmacare, and any others that constitute federal interference in the jurisdictions of the Government of Quebec.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with everything my colleague across the way just said.

I want to stress that, when we talk about the health care budget we give to Canadians in Quebec and all across Canada, it is not about interference. It is about equality. It is about control and independence, especially for women, whether they are Quebeckers or Canadians. They have the right to control their own reproductive system, and contraception will help them do that. It is as simple as that. This is crucial for gender equality.

I hope all the Bloc Québécois members vote in favour of the bill so it can go to the committee mentioned in the motion we are now studying, because it is time to act.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am all in favour of the purpose of Bill C‑64, but I take issue with rushing through the work, because we must participate in the debates.

I really wish we had time. I understand the pressure, as things in this place seem to face so many obstacles. The concern of the government is that things will get bogged down

As the leader of the Green Party, we have been, in every platform for I cannot remember how many elections, calling for a universal single-payer pharmacare that actually means that Canada will properly be a country with universal health care. We are the only country in the world that has a nationalized health care system that does not provide for universal pharmacare.

The big pharma industry in this country, and globally, makes indecent levels of profits over drugs that it has not had to put investment in for research. There are a lot of issues to discuss with pharmacare. The Hoskins report scratched the surface of the ways we could, in this country, save billions of dollars for our health care system, but not with a piecemeal approach. I very much fear the piecemeal approach to what I support: absolutely, diabetes medications, absolutely, contraception available for free. However, I fear that we may be setting up a system where, because we do not see savings, we may even see an increase in costs.

Universal, single-payer pharmacare would save our health care system billions of dollars a year, and this is not it, not yet. I want to support getting the bill through, but I really object to seeing a constant loss of our opportunity to thoroughly debate issues because of the need to bring down le bâillon, toujours la guillotine.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have several responses.

First, there has been 10 hours of debate thus far.

Second, this is not just about contraception and diabetes. It is also about establishing, within 30 days of royal assent, a committee of experts to make recommendations to the minister regarding the operation and financing of a national universal single-payer pharmacare. Are we proceeding incrementally at the start? Absolutely we are.

With respect to the financing component, that member is from the Saanich—Gulf Islands. In her own province, the estimate on the financial savings to the system just in B.C., from a UBC study, is that no-cost contraception has the potential to save the B.C. health care system approximately $27 million per year. As I said earlier, and I will say again, there is an ethical case for proceeding with pace. There is also a financial case for proceeding with pace.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think part of the difficulty is that the costly coalition fails to recognize that their continued spending on behalf of Canadians is costing Canadian lives. We know that, under the health care system that exists under the government's watch, between 17,000 and 30,000 Canadians die every year because of a procedure or a consultation they cannot get. The government still continues to spend money in a hand-over-fist fashion. With the support of the costly coalition partners behind me, what we are seeing is another bill being rushed through, much like the botched dental care plan, which we know should have taken several years and is now failing Canadians.

The other misconception that the government wants to peddle to Canadians is that this is a free plan that already exists. We already know there is no plan. This is a simple pamphlet or idea, again for photo ops, that is going to cost Canadians money. The minister spoke already about how the government is going to set up a specialist committee to talk about it a bit more. After that, it is going to create another Canadian drug agency, which is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

What we need is a responsible government. Whenever the Liberals are ready to allow us to take over, we are more than happy to.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the choice of government is for Canadians. It is not for the member, nor me.

First of all, as the member is a medical professional, I found some of his interventions quite astounding. The notion that investing in the health care system is somehow inappropriate is not what his province advocated for, nor did any of the other 10 provinces and three territories when we struck an almost $200-billion deal.

What I would also say is that it is really fundamental to get straight what we are talking about here. We are talking about delivering health care for Canadians by investing in their medication. As the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands rightfully pointed out, we are alone in the OECD in being a state that provides medical care coverage without providing medication coverage. That is an anomaly that we are curing with this important step. Why is it important? Because it deals with reproductive rights for women and medication for diabetes, which affects 3.7 million Canadians. Those are two cohorts that desperately need our support.

That is what we are providing through this legislation and that is why we are moving with pace to implement it.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister about concerns that we share with him about all the blockages the Conservatives have been putting up on bills like dental care that would help Canadians across the country. They seem to think that they deserve dental care here as MPs, yet needy families in the rest of Canada should not have dental care. They believe that we should not have single-payer pharmacare that would save us billions of dollars a year.

Canadians seem to think the Conservatives are good on the economy, but the Conservatives have no concept that this measure to create a single-payer pharmacare plan that would include coverage for contraceptives, as well as the dental care plan and all the other things that we talked about, would save us money.

I am just wondering if the minister could comment on that.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the fiscal case for proceeding in this manner is quite remarkably already laid out in studies, such as the one at UBC that I cited, and studies that we have seen in other areas with respect to diabetes. If there was no need for these kinds of services, I would query the Conservatives why 1.9 million seniors in this country registered for the Canada dental benefit, if no actual need existed.

I would put to the Conservatives, also, that if there was no need for extending that coverage on dental care, why we have already had 100,000 appointments set up, in literally the first three weeks of the program. It expresses to me, on a simplistic analysis, that the need is acute.

We are addressing the need with the program. Does it cost money? It absolutely costs money. However, that is an investment on the front end that cures costs to the system on the back end, which is something that a traditional red Tory would normally get behind.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a fairly simple dictum in politics that everyone knows, and it is that adding is better than subtracting. We try to add to the number of people who are willing to support our positions. By the same token, when a bill as momentous as this government bill is introduced, the aim is to get all the provinces to buy in and consent. This is not the case for pharmacare, however. The government never negotiated with the provinces and Quebec to secure their buy-in. It decided to implement a one-size-fits-all pharmacare program throughout Quebec, without having the necessary jurisdiction. That is why, today, it has to impose closure.

The Quebec government wants nothing to do with this version of pharmacare that the Liberal government is putting in place. The only ones who are happy with it are the members of the Liberal government, who are trying to spin it to their advantage with the electorate and preserve their alliance with the NDP. This is not the case for mere mortals. People who just want quality services can see that this bill has been botched.

If the government truly cared about health care, it would fund it at the level that the provinces are asking for, rather than cutting transfers year after year and starving our health system of the resources it needs. That is the question my colleague should weigh in on.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I do not agree at all with the remarks of my colleague opposite.

First, when we created a national program for all of Canada's provinces and territories by investing about $200 billion, we launched a process to sign bilateral agreements with each province, Quebec included.

Second, I would ask my colleague to talk to diabetics and women in his riding about the cost of their medication these days. The oral contraception pill costs about $25 a month, or $300 a year. Diabetes medication can cost between $900 and $1,700 a year.

I think my colleague should support this bill so that his constituents can save money while receiving care from the health system and getting their medication.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find the Liberal-NDP support of health care to be somewhat confusing. On one hand, they say they are providing all of these supports and building a whole new bureaucracy, but on the other hand, they are making things much more difficult and restricting choices for health care. I am thinking specifically of natural health products, which most Canadians take in one form or another. The policies and legislation they are bringing in would restrict and reduce the number of choices that Canadians could make.

I wonder if the minister can put it together. On one hand, Liberals say, yes, they want to help. On the other hand, they are not helping. They are making it harder for Canadians.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about the medication that would be covered under this proposal, which is diabetic medication and contraception. I am struggling to find any shred of a basis or rationale for the Conservatives' opposition to this. What I can only conclude is that the very issue of contraception is somehow some sort of sacred cow for the Conservative Party because it touches upon the very important notion, which we believe in firmly on this side of the House, in alliance with some of our progressive allies in this chamber, that women, and only women, have the right to have control over their own bodies and their own reproductive processes.

What impact would this have on women? It would have a significant impact. Not having affordable access to effective contraception can increase the risk of unintended pregnancies and impact life plans, such as going to school or advancing in one's career. By giving women this control, we would be not only helping their health care outcomes, but also helping their economic and education outcomes. Certainly, that is not something the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge would oppose for his female constituents.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this legislation, I believe there should be more debate on it because it is a wider bill. Right now, it takes about seven years for an oncology drug to be approved in Canada. That is partly because of the many processes it has to go through at Health Canada and through a provincial group that discusses drugs, etc. This would add to that, so we need to have more conversation about it.

Outside of that, I would like to correct the minister. It is within the purview of the government, through the regular supply process, to basically fund initiatives, and it can come to agreements with provinces to fund particular things under its fiscal power. It does not need to have legislation such as this.

Would the minister please acknowledge that the government does not need to have this legislation in place to make payments to individual provinces? British Columbia has already approved contraception through its own budget process. That is something that was debated in its legislature and passed. He does not need to do that here and now.

I am concerned with other measures within the bill. The government does not need this bill to pass to make those payments to provinces, whether it be for diabetes or for contraception.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for offering a substantive question and comment to this debate.

We have an agreement that there are health care needs that relate to medication. That is useful progress. I would say that there is a need for proceeding in this context with this very particular piece of legislation because the program is not meant to be a checkerboard where it is done on a bilateral basis, province by province. It is meant to be national, covering all 10 provinces and all three territories. That is the first very important point.

The second very important point is that the very pressing issue the member raised about oncological medications for cancer treatment is something that deserves to be discussed and debated. By starting incrementally, we are finally opening the door towards pharmacare in this country as an important expansion of our medical care system. Through the Canada drug agency, the new formulary and the expert recommendations that would follow, we would learn more about whether oncological drugs should be the next salvo in expanding this envelope.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Conservatives want absolutely nothing to do with a measure that will help tens of thousands of people in their ridings. In each Conservative riding, approximately 18,000 people could benefit from diabetes medication and 25,000 people could have access to contraception.

What I do not understand is why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to it. The Bloc Québécois wants to block this bill, even though all the major labour groups in Quebec have clearly stated that the bill is very useful and should be passed. Now, the number of Quebeckers involved with the unions affiliated with these major labour groups is far greater than the number who voted for the Bloc Québécois in the last federal election. The big question is, why is the Bloc Québécois planning to oppose measures that will help millions of Quebeckers?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is another very good question. I have been wondering the same thing, given the tradition in the Bloc Québécois and Quebec of promoting gender equality, promoting women's rights, promoting women's freedom, empowerment and access to health care. It is a bit sad and dangerous when a woman in Quebec has to choose between paying the bills and paying for medication.

With this bill, we will eliminate the need to make that choice. We will respond women's needs. This is a very serious situation that affects not just Quebec women, but approximately nine million women across Canada. It is a significant problem. We must pick up the pace in order to meet their needs.