House of Commons Hansard #315 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pharmacare.

Topics

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Madam Speaker, I think that the reason why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to Government Business No. 39 and this bill is, of course, that this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. We should put our trust in all the provinces. They know how best to manage their health care system and health insurance for the patients and families in their own territory.

We are talking about programs that existed 24 years ago. Many changes have been made since then through bills and regulations passed by the government. I am basing myself on what is happening today and not what happened 25 years ago.

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

7:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I like my colleague and I appreciate his fluent bilingualism.

I have to say that Conservatives are very consistent. Sixty years ago, they opposed universal health care, and they fought in the House to block universal health care. Today, it is our most cherished national institution. Last year, they fought dental care, and now we see two million Canadian seniors signed up, and 100,000 who have already received services in the first few weeks. They were wrong on dental care as well. The trial balloons the member throws up on pharmacare indicate that, again, the Conservatives are wrong on health care. The reality is, in the member's riding, more than 18,000 people will benefit from the diabetes medication and more than 25,000 will benefit from the contraception.

The member pointed out that there are two provinces that oppose it, although all of the central trade unions in Quebec support this. The reality is that the most unpopular government in the country is in Alberta right now where we have a premier who has been very erratic. However, there are advantages to Albertans in signing the deal and in passing this legislation. Why are Conservatives holding up and blocking this legislation?

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the member. I think the most unpopular government today is the NDP government in British Columbia. Premier Eby is now going to be facing the electorate after going along with the Liberal plan to basically approve all hard drugs and just spread them across the streets of Vancouver.

I have door-knocked in the member's riding, I have met church groups in his riding. I have gone door-to-door in several Burnaby-area ridings and this does not come up. What comes up is the carbon tax and how much people are paying, how punishing it is and how grocery prices are out of control. That is what they are actually talking about, not pamphlet pharmacare that has been the dream of the elites in the NDP. By the way, it is a plan that will also go after unions that negotiate hard at the table for the benefits that they get. Sometimes they give up pay increases for better insurance benefits, which are going to be taken away by stuff like this.

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of democracy and common-sense Conservatives here in the House of Commons.

What we see over and over again, presented by the costly coalition, are failures: failed plans, failed opportunities and a failure for Canadians. It is very sad to see a government in the last throes of its mandate, which has been here for nine incredibly long and difficult years on the backs of Canadians. We have a failed dental care plan and a failed opioid experiment. Sadly, we have a failing health care system, which pains me to no end. Now we have a failed pharmacare pamphlet. Why do we call it a pamphlet? It is because it promises to potentially do something, when, in essence, it is doing absolutely nothing. There is nothing here. It is another photo op.

When I am back home on our break week to go and visit those who have supported us and those who perhaps have not, people ask me about this great pharmacare program, wondering when they can get their free medications. I have to explain to them that what we see is a photo opportunity to announce a program that has to go a consultative route with an expert panel. Sadly, another government agency then has to be created. Already, my colleague from Calgary Shepard rightly spoke about the numerous agencies that are created and the opportunities that have been lost. Then there also have to be consultations with the provinces to see if this is something that fits into their framework, since they deliver health care and are responsible for that delivery. We continue to see this opportunity being lost because of the crazy spending and wacko politics we see across the aisle over and over.

I spoke briefly about the failed dental care program. My colleague from the other part of the costly coalition wants to tout how many people in my riding might benefit from a dental care program. However, when we go out and speak to dentists, as I have done, we know this plan is so bad that dentists will not even sign on for it. I have spoken to every single dental association across the country.

The Liberals are doing a bit of gaslighting, which we see over and over, when they talk about how many dental professionals have signed up. There are dental hygienists, who are independent from dentists. However, we know that Canadians want access to a dentist, much like they want a primary care provider in the health care system. The government also promised 7,500 doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners. On this side of the House, we know that is not in the purview of the federal government, but be that as it may, that is something it promised over there. We all know it has not delivered. In addition, the number of people who do not have access to primary care continues to climb. I know my colleague from Winnipeg Centre will get up and say, “Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth to say that this is not the purview of the federal government, but that of the provincial government, because I have heard him say it before.” The difficulty is that it is his government, his side of the House, in concert with the costly coalition, that promised to deliver 7,500 doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners. Therefore, when we see the system failing on the backs of the promises the Liberals continue to make, we know that they are continuing to fail Canadians.

I talked briefly in my opening remarks about the opioid experiment, which is another failure. The NDP-Liberal coalition, for some reason, made that decision; we hope it will finally walk back on that and make it law to not continue these types of experiments. Interestingly enough, on behalf of Canadians, we know that there is reasonable evidence that the opioid epidemic that exists in North America was probably started because of access to OxyContin. Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family were successfully sued in the United States for their complicit nature in this epidemic that has existed. Because of that, we now have an opioid epidemic that is often related to fentanyl. The interesting question is this: How could a government believe that decriminalizing that drug could possibly fix this crisis that was started originally because of too much OxyContin being easily accessible? Doing so has meant adding more of it, and other drugs like it, such as hydromorphone, on the street; in this case, there is often so-called safe supply for zero cost. It is another failure the government has supported.

It pains me to no end to have to talk about the failed and failing health care system. Certainly, the former president of the Canadian Medical Association, Katharine Smart, said it very concisely. She said we have a system that is now, sadly, on the brink of collapse. Why is it on the brink of collapse? As Canadians know, the entire health care system in our country is predicated on having access to primary care. This then gives us access to other services we need, other procedures, other laboratory tests and specialist care.

When we do not have that access, several things happen. Someone does not get any access at all, their health suffers because of that and they give up; otherwise, they end up trying to access the system through episodic care, which is often related to visiting emergency rooms, and we know they are incredibly clogged up. At this point in the history of our great country, approximately seven million Canadians do not have access to primary care, because of the failure of the health care system on the promises, as I have already mentioned, of this costly coalition.

What are the effects? We know these effects happen on an everyday basis in the ridings of every member of Parliament across the nation. We know that, incredibly sadly, people are dying while they are waiting for care in emergency rooms. We know that emergency rooms are clogged up for hours on end. There are many stories about people waiting 12 and 24 hours. The most atrocious story I have heard lately is the sad story of a gentleman who was a quadriplegic. He waited for innumerable hours in an emergency room, got bedsores and then chose MAID over trying to improve his health.

When we hear these drastic and unfathomable stories of the health care system, we begin to wonder why an NDP-Liberal coalition wants to spend more and more money on health care. It wants to spend $1.5 billion, on this particular occasion, on contraceptives and diabetes medication.

We see that the Liberals have failed at dental care and their opioid experiment; now they are failing at a health care plan and at pharmacare. We also understand that this is not a plan. This is like someone saying they built a mansion when they do not even own the land on which to build said mansion. It is a pamphlet, it is a photo opportunity, and it is going to be another failure, sadly, on behalf of Canadians who are already demanding their free medications. We know the plan the costly coalition created is many years down the road.

We also know, because of the Liberals' desire to ram this piece of legislation through, that there are already studies planned in the health committee. We are finishing the study on opioids, which we know is a disaster. We are looking at breast cancer screening, which would help save the lives of many young women here in Canada. It is because of the ram-down-one's-throat nature of the motion on the bill that those studies will be missed.

Do I believe that we need more time to study this in health committee? Yes, I do. I do not believe that having 10 hours of witnesses, when we have 10 to 20 witnesses who want to appear and talk about this, is going to be a significant problem.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding to paragraph (a) the following: “(vii) the Minister of Health and his officials be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than three hours.”

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised by the member across the way, because he is someone who has consistently demonstrated the contrast between the government and the official opposition, the Conservatives. The Conservative Party does not believe in Canada's health care system, and their record will clearly demonstrate that. When I take a look at a holistic approach to health care, we have made a $200-billion commitment over the next 10 years that future generations can see. We have negotiated health care accords with all provinces and territories. We continue to look at a dental program that is a success. The bill is an expansion of the pharmacare program. This is a government that truly cares and values our health care system, and we are working with governments to make a difference. The Conservatives, on the other hand, just criticize, because they do not support a national health care system.

My question for the member is this: Why?

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, I had the great opportunity and privilege to be educated in this country as a family physician and to work as a family doctor for 26 years. I take great umbrage at what the member across wishes to say about my feelings around the health care system. I would go so far as to say that one of the main reasons I had my resident take over my practice was so that I could come here and have the opportunity to work inside this system to make the health care system better.

What I do not support is a health care system where we see somewhere between 17,000 and 30,000 Canadians dying every year because of a lack of access to it. I place that squarely at the feet of the costly NDP-Liberal coalition.

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, whom I work with at the health committee. However, he has really made the case for passing the legislation. First, he did talk about the Harper cuts and the slashing of health care funding that has led to the crisis we still see today. The Liberals have not been quick enough to actually restore the funding that the Harper government cut, but the Harper government was the major instigator of the problems that we have in the health care system today. It is not just that, though.

As members know, emergency rooms across this country are populated by people who do not have access to dental care. The NDP offered dental care; the Conservatives voted against it. The Canadian Nurses Association tells us that there are hundreds of people who have to go to emergency rooms because they cannot afford to pay for their medication. Again, the NDP offers pharmacare, so I guess the question is this: If he is aware of the problems in the health care system, does he apologize for the Harper cuts, and is he willing now to understand that dental care and pharmacare are actually key elements in trying to bring down the number of people in emergency rooms and give better health care to all Canadians?

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, sadly, the member is obviously misinformed and trying to present disinformation to Canadians. We know of the Harper government, and I am quite glad that the spirit of Mr. Harper lives rent-free in the head of the NDP's costly coalition all the time. They love to bring him up, but on this side of the House, we also know that the funding for health care went up every year under the Harper government.

The other thing that we know, again, is of the misinformation and disinformation provided by the member, sadly. I sometimes enjoy working with him as well, but the majority of people in emergency rooms are not showing up because of dental problems. That is just an absolute non-truth, and if they did show up because they could not afford their medications, then presenting to the emergency room is of no benefit. Someone does not get free medications in the emergency room, so it is just a bunch of foolishness to try to keep the government in power.

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, earlier I was listening intently to my colleague, who is a doctor, talking about the shortcomings of the health care system. However, I have never heard his leader clearly state whether he supports the provinces' request to increase health care funding from 22% to 35%. This government has not agreed to that request. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

Does he agree with that? Would his leader be willing to increase the federal share of health care funding from 22% to 35%?

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the media nine or 10 months ago. The answer to that question is that we want to uphold the existing transfers. I think that is very important. We also need to think of other ways to improve the health care system here in Canada, while respecting the provinces.

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate, but I think it is unfortunate that I will not have much time to do so. With the help of the NDP, the government has limited the time for debate. That means that, today, I will not be able to share absolutely everything that I would have liked to share and debate with my colleagues because time allocation has been imposed on an important bill that has consequences for the provinces.

This bill will have consequences and it will infringe on provincial jurisdictions. It may also cause disruptions in the existing system. I think it would have been only reasonable for us to take the necessary time to debate this bill and to shed light on some of its inherent problems. We think that this shows that the government and the NDP are in a hurry to tick a box on their platform so that they can have people believe that they implemented a universal pharmacare program, which is not the case.

Today, we are debating a bill that sets out a series of principles. If those principles are adopted and if the provinces are willing, then one day there may be a pan-Canadian pharmacare program. However, there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.

First, Quebec has unequivocally stated that it will not support this bill or work with the federal government to set up a Canadian pharmacare program. In fact, Quebec has had a hybrid pharmacare program since 1996, meaning that no one in Quebec lacks drug coverage. Everyone is covered, either through their job—with a collective agreement or a contract that allows them to access a private company—or through access to the public pharmacare plan, which is administered by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec.

The bill we have before us blatantly encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction. The government is suddenly swooping in to play the leader in a program that already exists in Quebec.

The NDP will not have a chance to ask me the question, so I will provide the answer I would have given if my colleagues had asked it. We know that in Quebec, the unions, who for the most part represent public sector workers, pay big medicare and pharmacare premiums on their paycheque. We in the Bloc Québécois agree that there is an imbalance. The government should talk to Quebec and the unions to find an answer to this situation, because there is indeed a problem. However, what my NDP colleagues fail to mention is that at the National Assembly, which is the democratic assembly of Quebec, all the parties, namely Québec Solidaire, the Parti Québécois, the Liberal Party and the CAQ government, unanimously adopted a motion saying that this is out of the question, that this does not interest them, but that it might interest them if the federal government were willing to give them the money to improve their own programs, with no strings attached.

We are not being bad sports. We are simply asking the government not to disrupt the way we manage pharmacare in Quebec. That said, we are prepared to talk, take the money, improve our program and, perhaps, find a solution to the issue of public sector workers paying unreasonable premiums. I say this because, before becoming an MP, I was a public sector worker. When I looked at my paycheque, I saw that I was paying huge premiums. This is due to the fact that pharmaceutical groups now finance their medications in a certain way. A small number of us finance the costs of increasingly niche medications for very specific patients. That means a very small number of us are paying the costs of research.

Public system workers are the ones paying a large share of it. Since we agree on that, what stopped the government and the NDP from agreeing to Quebec's request? Quebec is not against pharmacare. It is not unwilling to explore ways of improving it. However, the government should not try to tell Quebec how to do it, what recipe to follow, and so on.

This bill contains all sorts of steps that need to be taken before people can get a full refund of their drug costs, including diabetes medications or contraceptives for women. That is going to take a long time. The government wants us to believe that if this bill is passed, people will have access to a free, universal Canadian pharmacare program by the next day. We do not think that is possible, because it will take quite a while before Quebec reaches an agreement with the federal government. I heard my colleague say that Alberta, like Quebec, has also voiced opposition.

I know that time is running out and that the time I am taking to talk is delaying the next vote, but I still have a lot more to say about how we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, do not understand why we are being accused of blocking a bill like this one, when Quebec has jurisdiction and is responsible for managing everything related to health, including pharmacare.

As we know, the provinces have created an alliance so that they can buy prescription drugs in bulk. Quebec's health minister, along with a team of experts, determines the list of drugs that are covered by the public plan. We also have a system that enables doctors to ask the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec for exemptions, so that a person who really needs a drug that is not on the formulary can get reimbursed for it.

Imagine if Canada came up with a formulary that was completely different from Quebec's formulary. Imagine the utter confusion that would cause. That is already happening with the dental insurance. We do not need another pan-Canadian program to tell us how to manage our health and social services. What is more, the federal government is not in the best position to tell us what to do, since it already has enough trouble managing its own affairs in areas under its own jurisdiction.

We are calling on the federal government to leave it to Quebec and the provinces to provide the service. The best way to help Quebec and the provinces is to give them the money with a right to opt out with no strings attached. That would prove that what matters is not making political gains, but ensuring that people have access to a pharmacare program.

What we are seeing is simply a PR exercise where two political parties are hurting in the polls and they want to be able to tick a box on their record and build their electoral campaign on it. Speaking for myself, I am going to be very uncomfortable when people ask me when they will be able to get their drugs for free in Quebec. I have no date to give them. I really have no hope of giving them one either because, based on what we are seeing right now, this is just a PR campaign that is misinforming the public. I find that shameful.

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

8:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

It being 8:07 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 39 now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

Shall I dispense?

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

8:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

8:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

If a member present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

Consideration of Government Business No. 39Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

8:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #770

Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

8:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

9 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #771

Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

9:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I declare the motion carried.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services on a point of order.

Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

9:15 p.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC

Madam Speaker, I would ask that the first division be amended. I made the wrong choice.

I am requesting the unanimous consent of the House to vote nay.

Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

9:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

To seek the unanimous consent of the House, all the whips must be consulted and they must notify the Chair. I have not received any such notice.

Government Business No. 39—Proceedings on Bill C-64Government Orders

May 22nd, 2024 / 9:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

For clarification, we would be prepared to give the unanimous consent to allow the member to have his vote changed so that he is voting in favour.