Debates of May 30th, 2024

Motions in Amendment

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, that is a point of debate. I would just ask the hon. member to maybe keep those questions and comments for the appropriate time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting here in the House, the whole idea, whether the NDP-Liberal costly coalition likes it or not, of actually having a robust debate, especially when there are significant differences of opinion. Of course, that is why we are here tonight. We on this side of the House believe that legislation should be debated, and debated robustly, in spite of the fact of the trickery and antics used by the costly coalition to move closure on the bill.

On behalf of Canadians, I say that it has become fascinating to me that the notion that the House is spending other people's money has been lost, and this is a $2-billion bill where we would spend the money of taxpayers. I think we should do it with great caution. We should be prudent when we are doing it, and we should be doing things that we hear from taxpayers are important to them.

When we look across the country and hear about the things that are mentioned in the bill, we know that that is not happening. Therefore, when the hon. NDP member who is standing behind me says that what we are talking about is this or that, or some other foolish intervention, then what we end up with is just wasting more time. He has been here long enough to know the rules, or he should know the rules.

We know that when the bill was introduced there were only 10 hours of witness testimony and five hours of debate on clause-by-clause on it. Why is this important? When we begin to look at the pharmacare bill, we see that some of the amendments that were introduced originally were related to having Canadians understand that the bill really relates to only two classes of medications: contraception and medications and products for diabetes. That does not mean that those two classes are not important; they are. They involve important health states that often need the intervention of a prescription, but it means that the bill is no more than that at the current time.

It is interesting that the government, on canada.ca, puts out a list of medications that may or may not be covered by the bill, which creates hope for Canadians. Canadians will say, “Well, these are the medications that are going to be covered.” Many different groups come forward and ask, “Well, why not this and why not that?” Probably one of the most influential medications in the history of diabetes treatment besides insulin is Ozempic, but it is not on the list. People will say, “Well, why is it not on the list?” Then, of course, the government talks about the bill and says, “Well, that is not really the list; that is just a list. It is any old list.” Why did it publish it on its website, on canada.ca? Are those things important? Absolutely, they are.

When we talk about definitions, folks listening in at home will say that some of them are self-evident. They are not self-evident when we are dealing with $2 billion. For example, what is the definition of “universal”, “single-payer” and “first dollar”? Those definitions are incredibly important, so that the 70% to 80% or so of Canadians who have private insurance can be at least somewhat reassured that they would not lose private coverage.

That is the largest, most expansive and most distressing concern that we on this side of the House have. I would suggest that reassurances from the Minister of Health are just not enough for Canadians. To say, “Oh, trust me” is kind of akin to that old saying, “I'm from the government and I'm here to help”, which we all know is a difficult pill to swallow.

There was another interesting thing that, in our limited time, we did learn in committee. There were two experts. One was actually there in person and one was on Zoom, and they were both touted as Canada's experts on pharmacare. I was glad they were not in the same room, as we never know what might have happened, but that being said, the most fascinating thing was that, even though both of them are experts on pharmacare, neither one of them was actually consulted on the bill. They did not give any input whatsoever on how the bill should come to be, what should be in it or what should not be in it, and for me that is somewhat distressing.

Another somewhat distressing thing that is referenced in the bill is the committee of experts, the group that would be put forward to decide exactly which medications and which devices would be covered. Again, there are several amendments related to that. Things such as regional representation and professional representation were once again simply dismissed by the NDP-Liberal costly coalition. That creates significant problems for us on this side of the House, and it is exactly why we believe we need to be here this evening. When we know it is not a plan, not a blueprint, but is a plan perhaps to create a plan, that again creates distress on behalf of Canadians.

We know that people value the private coverage they are fortunate enough to have at this time, and we know that employers are happy to offer those benefits to their employees as a condition of their employment. Sadly, about a million people do not have coverage for medications. We on this side of the House believe there could be better ways to give them that than offering the pharmacare idea.

When we begin to look at the state of health care in this country at the current time, we know there are problems with the system we have. When one cannot access primary care, it is incredibly difficult to have a lab test done, to see a specialist or to have a diagnostic imaging test done. I say it is difficult because what happens is that people end up going to emergency rooms and urgent care centres to have some routine things done or even to have their prescriptions refilled. When we begin to look at that, in the words of former Canadian Medical Association president Dr. Katharine Smart a couple of years ago, the system is actually on the brink of collapse.

If anything, in the last couple of years we know that things have become even worse. There are now approximately seven million Canadians who do not have access to primary care, which means, as I mentioned, that they have to go to urgent care centres or emergency rooms, or go without care, which is the worst state of affairs.

Some of the other estimates would say we are 30,000 physicians short in this country. When we graduate about 3,200 every year, it seems almost an impossibility to make up the shortage. I always to try to help Canadians understand it. It is kind of like having a car that does not have any wheels on it, but wanting a new stereo in it, which is not terribly helpful. It is perhaps not a great analogy but it is something to try to help Canadians understand what is going on.

The other part is that we know that wait times in the system, if one is so fortunate enough to be able to access it, are the longest they have been in 30 years, three decades. If one is fortunate enough to have a family physician, the wait time for having specialist care is over 27 weeks, six months. We know that people on waiting lists are dying. Somewhere between 17,000 and 30,000 people are dying every year waiting for treatment in this country. The system itself is in absolutely poor shape and falling apart.

The difficulty we also see, again, is government members' being champions of photo ops. They talk about their dental program, which has significantly disappointed many Canadians. We now know that provincial dental associations are taking out ads warning people about the extra costs and the lack of ability to find a dentist.

Liberals promised a $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer, which has never come to fruition at all. They promised affordable housing, and we know they are building less housing than before. They promised $10-a-day day care, and of course one cannot access it.

What we have is a government that is great at announcements and very bad at actually making anything happen. We know, on this side of the House, that Bill C-64 needs significant amendments and significant debate. On behalf of Canadians, we need to be incredibly cautious with how we are spending other people's money.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, under the statute, there would be a requirement for the government to come up with an essential drug list within a year of its getting royal assent. It would seem to me this would be a difficult process. I am sure all kinds of doctors are going to want different things to be part of the essential drug list. What does the member think about our ability to do that and to do it within one year?

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

Madam Speaker, sometimes people liken getting a group of doctors angry to getting a bunch of bees angry, in the sense that if we make one mad, they all want to sting us. That interesting image would hold true in this case.

How do we decide things when a group of experts get in a room? First of all, we need to pick a group of experts, which we had some ideas on at committee. They were rejected by the costly coalition. The other part of it is asking, what is the best insulin? What is the best medication, the pills, available to treat diabetes? Why is Ozempic not here? How do we make those pharmacoeconomic decisions when we know that some medications are incredibly cheap but not as effective as the more expensive medications? Who is going to be the final arbiter of that decision-making?

I thank my hon. colleague for the question, because I think it is a very important one. Canadians need to understand that the lists published on Canada.ca are simply lists and are not worth the paper they are printed on.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have a problem here in Ottawa. Governments, particularly Liberal governments, think they know more than the provinces in fields where they are completely incompetent.

However, the NDP is breaking records. It is even worse. Not so long ago, the leader of the NPD wrote to Quebec's health minister asking for a meeting so he could teach him about the benefits of a pharmacare system. He did that even though Quebec has a system where everyone has been insured since 1996.

I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks of this kind of attitude in Ottawa. How does the NDP's centralizing and equally incompetent attitude compound the already deep wrongs of Liberal governments?

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

Madam Speaker, it is very important to respect provincial jurisdictions.

Everyone in the House knows that the province of Quebec has a drug coverage program. It is a very extensive program, but it costs too much.

We need to sit down together, talk about the problems and find solutions, especially in a case like this, where drug coverage is really a provincial responsibility.

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

Madam Speaker, Conservatives say they want to save money, but they are spending $400,000 on this debate tonight, which is about meaningless motions that basically delete the entire bill. There is not a single contribution the Conservative Party and Conservative MPs have made to pharmacare.

We know the Conservatives were wrong on dental care. Some 120,000 seniors, in the first three weeks, benefited from dental care across the country. Two million seniors have signed up, with tens of thousands more each and every week. Pharmacare would help six million Canadians with diabetes and nine million Canadians who buy contraceptives.

Is that not why Conservatives are wasting this debate and $400,000 of taxpayers' money tonight? Is it not because they fear the supports the NDP is providing for the Conservatives' constituents across the country?

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

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. I do not fear anything the NDP members have to say or think. I think that is important. They fear spending money on anything except democracy. All they want to do is ram legislation through, in their costly coalition partnership, with respect to things they sadly do not understand. The only other thing the NDP members want to spend money on is delaying the date of the election by one week so that many of them can access their pensions, which is money spent on behalf of Canadians.

When we look at those kinds of things, those words do not ring true with any of us in the House.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-64, which deals with pharmacare and develops a framework for it. This bill, along with other investments made by our government, would help millions of Canadians who are struggling to pay for their prescription drugs. We had a very healthy process at HESA, the Standing Committee on Health. I want to thank all witnesses who appeared before the committee and those who sent written testimony because it really helped us understand the positive impact of this legislation.

This bill is a priority for our government. It establishes the fundamental principles for implementing a national pharmacare program in Canada. It also sets out our plan to work with the provinces and territories who so desire to propose universal single-payer coverage for a certain number of contraceptives and diabetes medications.

Since this bill was introduced, we have heard many facts about access to and affordability of prescription drugs within Canada. Statistics Canada's data from 2021 indicates that one in five Canadians has reported not having enough insurance to cover the cost of prescription medication in the previous 12 months. We know that having no prescription insurance coverage is associated with higher non-adherence to prescriptions because of cost. We also know that this results in some Canadians having to choose between paying for these medications and paying for other basic necessities, like food and housing.

This is why our government has consistently made commitments toward national pharmacare. Bill C-64 recognizes the critical importance of working with provinces and territories, which are responsible for the administration of health care. It also outlines our intent to work with these partners to provide universal single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications.

This legislation is an important step forward to improve health equity, affordability and outcomes and has the potential of long-term savings for the health care system. In budget 2024, we announced $1.5 billion over five years to support the launch of national pharmacare and coverage for contraception and diabetes medications. I would like to highlight the potential impact that these two drug classes, for which we are seeking to provide coverage under this legislation, would have on Canadians.

We have heard stories of people, or know someone, in our constituencies struggling to access diabetes medication or supplies due to a lack of insurance coverage through their work, or of an individual who has limited insurance coverage so they cannot choose the form of contraception that is best suited for them. For example, for a part-time uninsured worker who has type 1 diabetes and is also of reproductive age to manage her diabetes, it would cost up to $18,000 per year, leaving her unable to afford the $500 upfront cost of her preferred method of contraception, a hormonal IUD. With the introduction of this legislation, this individual would save money on costs associated with managing her diabetes and would be able to access a hormonal IUD at no cost, with no out-of-pocket expenses, once the legislation is implemented in her province.

Studies have demonstrated that publicly funded, no-cost universal contraception can result in public cost savings. Evidence from the University of British Columbia has estimated that no-cost contraception has the potential to save the B.C. health care system approximately $27 million per year. Since April 1, 2023, British Columbia is the only province in Canada to provide universal free contraceptives to all residents under the B.C. pharmacare program. In the first eight months of this program, more than 188,000 people received free contraceptives.

The same cost-cutting principle applies to diabetes medication.

Diabetes is one of the most widespread chronic diseases in Canada. Although there is no cure for diabetes, there are treatments to manage the disease.

One in four Canadians with diabetes has reported not following a treatment plan due to cost. Improving access to diabetes medications would help improve the health of some of the 3.7 million Canadians living with diabetes and would reduce the risk of serious life-changing health complications such as blindness and amputations. Beyond helping people with managing their diabetes and living healthier lives, if left untreated or poorly managed, diabetes can lead to high and unnecessary costs on the health care system due to its complications, including heart attacks, strokes and kidney failure. The full cost of diabetes to the health care system could exceed almost $40 billion by 2028, as estimated by Diabetes Canada.

The bill demonstrates the Government of Canada's commitment to consulting widely on the way forward and working with provinces, territories, indigenous peoples and other partners and stakeholders, including other political parties, to improve the accessibility, affordability and appropriate use of pharmaceutical products by reducing financial barriers and contributing to physical and mental health and well-being.

Beyond our recent work on Bill C-64, I would like to highlight some of the ongoing initiatives that this government has put in place to support our efforts toward national pharmacare.

On a national level, our government launched the first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases in March 2023, with an investment of up to $1.5 billion over three years. As part of the overall $1.5-billion investment, our government will make available up to $1.4 billion over three years to willing provinces and territories through bilateral agreements.

The strategy marks the beginning of a national approach to meeting the need for drugs used to treat rare diseases.

This funding would help provinces and territories improve access to new and emerging drugs for Canadians with rare diseases and would support enhanced access to existing drugs, early diagnosis and screening for rare diseases.

I would also like to highlight another initiative under way, which involves the excellent work by Prince Edward Island through a $35-million federal investment. Under this initiative, P.E.I. is working to improve affordable access to prescription drugs, while at the same time informing the advancement of national universal pharmacare. The work accomplished by P.E.I. has been remarkable. Since December of last year, P.E.I. has expanded access to over 100 medications to treat a variety of conditions, including heart disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis and cancer. In addition, effective June 1, 2023, P.E.I. reduced copays to five dollars for almost 60% of medications regularly used by island residents. I am pleased to share that through this initiative, P.E.I. residents have saved over $2.8 million in out-of-pocket costs as of March of this year.

Finally, on December 18, 2023, the Government of Canada announced the creation of Canada's drug agency, the CDA, with an investment of over $89.5 million over five years, starting in 2024-25. The CDA will provide the dedicated leadership and coordination needed to make Canada's drug system more sustainable and better prepared for the future, helping Canadians achieve better health outcomes. I am pleased to share that as of May 1, Canada's drug agency has officially launched.

In closing, members can see the extraordinary amount of hard work that has been dedicated to national pharmacare.

Bill C‑64 is a major step forward in our commitment to guaranteeing affordable, quality drugs for all Canadians. Our universal coverage plan for contraceptives and diabetes drugs will change the lives of individuals, families, society and our health care system.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to know where to begin with the speech the parliamentary secretary just gave. I have heard some of this before at rare diseases conferences. I just want people at home to know that not a single rare disease drug would be paid for through this legislation. That is for starters. It is only mentioned once in this entire piece of legislation. Second of all, the Canadian drug agency is not created. CADTH is being repurposed and renamed into the CDA.

My question, though, is specifically on rare diseases because the parliamentary secretary mentioned them. Of the $1.5 billion announced all the way back in 2019, $1.4 billion is still left unspent. Could the member tell me which rare disease drugs were covered between 2019 and today, which patients received the drugs and for what conditions?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for his advocacy on rare diseases and drug coverage. I have heard him speak before quite convincingly, and I thank him for the hard work he is doing.

The member is absolutely right. We have allocated $1.5 billion over three years, but that delivery will come through provinces and territories. We are doing the hard work to engage in bilateral agreements with provinces and territories so that we can flow that money through provinces and cover the cost of medication through bilateral agreements for rare diseases. That work is ongoing.

The work that we are doing through Bill C-64 on pharmacare is an add-on to that work. It complements the work that we are doing on rare diseases, and I look forward to continuing to work with the member opposite on this very important issue.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives were fighting tooth and nail to stop the dental care program. More than two million seniors across this country have signed up for dental care already. In the first three weeks of the dental care program, 120,000 have had access to dental care, often for the first time in their lives. Conservatives fought like hell to stop that program from coming into being and helping their constituents.

Now the Conservatives are wasting $400,000 in taxpayers' money in a debate that is about deleting all the clauses of the bill, a meaningless, ridiculous, disrespectful debate that will cost Canadians $400,000 by the time it ends this evening to try to block pharmacare, which will help, on average, 18,000 Conservative constituents with diabetes medication and 25,000 Conservative constituents in every riding in the country in terms of contraceptives.

Why are the Conservatives so afraid of the benefits that the NDP has forced the government to provide that will actually make a difference and help their constituents' lives?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the truth is that the Conservatives do not support a pharmacare program. They do not support a Canadian dental care plan. They are throwing up all kinds of obstacles and denying the existence even of a Canadian dental care plan because they do not support that kind of really important help.

In fact, ideologically, they are motivated by private health care. If they have their way, that is what they will be championing, but on this side of the House, in this government, we strongly believe in a universal, single-payer system of health care and making sure that the most vulnerable in our communities get the care they need. That is why the Canadian dental care plan is such a success just in three weeks. The numbers cited by the member opposite are absolutely correct, and we will see more seniors and young people getting that health care because oral health is health.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts with regard to how the Government of Canada works with other jurisdictions, in particular, the provinces, to look at ways that we can support Canadians in terms of medications.

I see this as a good, solid first step for pharmacare. I would ask him to add some comments with respect to that.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member and I share an experience. We have both served in the provincial legislatures in our respective provinces, Manitoba for him and Ontario for me. We know that one of the biggest responsibilities provinces have is the delivery of health care. That is why it is imperative that the federal government work with provinces and territories in delivering these programs. That is what this pharmacare framework legislation is all about. I am very much looking forward to entering into those bilateral agreements with provinces and territories once this bill is passed into law.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the members who may have the courage to sit late with us this evening.

Today we are debating Bill C‑64 to supposedly institute a national pharmacare program. I say supposedly because that is not what the bill does. Let us speak the truth. It is a bill mainly designed to playing politics, to the benefit of who knows who because by all accounts, the NDP is dropping in the polls.

What we are seeing today is a partial implementation of this system. The Liberal government, together with the NDP, is focusing on diabetes medication and contraceptives. What we are seeing today is a bit what the Conservatives have also been trying to do for a while now in this Parliament, to introduce American-style politics here in Canada's Parliament. We know that in the United States, in some states, the right-wing parties, the right-wing Republicans are attacking a woman's right to bodily autonomy. The Liberals are very afraid of the Conservatives, often with reason, because we know that there are a lot of people in the Conservative caucus who think that women do not have the right to control their own bodies. Essentially, the pharmacare plan is being used to Americanize Canadian politics.

Now, what this bill does is say that a national pharmacare program is needed. I want to point out that we are talking here about a federal national program, because we know that Quebec is a nation. The government is imposing a format. It is called first dollar coverage, which means that an individual must be insured and must have access to medication without having to spend a single penny. I understand that it would be ideal if many insurance plans, depending on the nature of the risk, were to say that, when a person is sick, they are not responsible for their situation. They did not do anything in particular to get sick, they are just unlucky and they should be insured and not have to spend a single penny. Society will be responsible for providing full insurance coverage.

However, Quebec already has an insurance program, a mixed insurance system. It is true that people have to pay a little. For example, for the public plan, when a person does not have a workplace plan or a private plan, they pay from $0 to $700 and change per year per person, depending on income. The contribution is geared to income. Most people have a plan through their employer that is negotiated as part of their collective agreement, so it is true that, in some cases, people pay a deductible for medication. They pay a certain amount, which is often very low, but everyone in Quebec is insured and the system already exists.

The money that is going to be used to meddle in Quebec's affairs in an area where the federal government is notoriously incompetent, namely health care, should be paid out to Quebec so that we can improve the system that already exists and help it evolve. There is a list of 8,000 drugs that are covered in Quebec. That seems to have piqued people's interest. The federal government knows it is going to be very expensive, so it is buying time. The Liberals know very well that this completely universal plan, where everything is covered, will never come to fruition before the Conservatives come to power. This plan deals with two health conditions. Do people realize how huge a gap there is between reality and rhetoric and how we could have taken this money and sent it to Quebec so that these funds could be managed based on Quebec's priorities?

Some of the debates we had were disgusting in many ways. We, in the Bloc, were told that by opposing Bill C‑64, we were opposing the well-being of the people in our own ridings, and that the only possible way to show concern for people's health, supposedly, was to support a bill that will not properly establish a universal pharmacare system for Quebeckers. That is going to be addressed through questions, if the Liberals ask any. They will tell us that we are against this or that, that we are against people's health, but that is absolutely untrue. We are in favour of insurance, but Quebec is ahead of the game, and we cannot totally upend the Quebec system just because at some point, 25 years down the road, the federal government and the NDP decided to wake up one Tuesday morning. We cannot do that.

One of the reasons the NDP included this kind of program in its coalition agreement with the Liberals, and one of the reasons the only NDP member from Quebec, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, is fighting tooth and nail for Bill C‑64, is supposedly because the major unions support it. It is a delicate situation.

It is true that the cost of drugs has increased, as has the cost of health care services in general, as well as all health technologies. As a result, the cost of private group insurance has gone up. In many workplaces, employer and employee contributions have increased over the past few years. This can put pressure on people's ability to pay. This can put pressure on collective bargaining to get higher wages to deal with the cost of living. We recognize that. We know that is important.

The reason the unions might be united in supporting this federal legislation is not because Ottawa is capable, it is not because Ottawa is good, it is not because Ottawa is competent, it is because the money is in Ottawa; it is because there is a fundamental fiscal imbalance; it is because there are more revenues in Ottawa than the weight of responsibility on the federal government; it is because the provinces need money. The federal government is so determined not to transfer money unconditionally to the provinces that many people have at some point lost confidence in one day having a federal government that will act responsibly and transfer money unconditionally. At some point, the unions decided that they will support the minimum. They will support what they think is feasible in a context where the federal government's lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions and its contempt for Quebec have been institutionalized for decades. That is what is happening.

The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is grandstanding and saying that he has the support of the unions. The message that he should be sending to the unions is this. He should tell the unions that, with Ottawa running this program, they will get less value for their money. There will be fewer drugs and less coverage. The system will not be as effective. The government will be creating a redundant system. In the end, the workers are the ones who will pay. This measure is extremely anti-union.

The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie should have acted more responsibly. He should have explained to the unions that we need to stand together and look to Quebec to get the transfers with no strings attached because Quebec is prepared to improve its system. That is what should be done.

I served on the Standing Committee on Health for several months. The ability to spend, the ability to put a knife to the provinces' throats, to make them accept conditions in exchange for money is in the NDP's DNA. I spent enough time in committee to know that.

The Bloc Québécois proposed a completely reasonable amendment. It asked for the right for Quebec to opt out with full compensation because Quebec already has all the necessary infrastructure. Quebec already has a system. Quebec is prepared to improve its system. It needs that money to continue this social development, which, as with day cares, means that, today, Quebec has a social policy—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to our hon. colleague.

I rise on a point of order. In a debate such as this, there seems to be, according to our constitutional requirements, a lack of quorum.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but quorum cannot be called during this debate.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, the absence of Liberal colleagues in the House should not be mentioned.

We have tabled an amendment—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to be very clear, there are members inside and outside the chamber, from all political parties, who listen—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. Someone was speaking while you were speaking initially and I did not quite get what the hon. member said.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it was just in reference to quorum. It should be noted that members cannot call quorum, as you have pointed out, but there are members, both—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Yes. Thank you very much. I think all members know very well what the rules are because of the fact we have been doing this over and again for quite some time. There is no quorum call during these debates.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, that adds a bit of spice to our evening, obviously.

As I was saying, we asked for the right to opt out with full financial compensation. That should have been granted, in the interests of patients, those who are ill and workers. However, it was denied by the Speaker on the pretext that it requires royal recommendation, when the only thing Quebec wants is to have its share of the funds that are already allocated within this bill.

This shows just how institutionalized and deep-seated Ottawa's desire is to crush Quebec, to crush Quebec's desire to act in its own areas of jurisdiction and to exercise authority within its own areas of jurisdiction based on its preferences, particularly when it comes to pharmacare. It is in the genes of Ottawa's politicians, in their DNA. What is happening here today is so unfortunate.

It is unfortunate because the interests of patients and Quebeckers are coming second. We should be greatly saddened to see that people's health is being politicized for electoral purposes. That should never be commended.

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

Madam Speaker, I am truly surprised that the Bloc Québécois refuses to listen to what Quebeckers are saying.

A large coalition, the largest in Quebec, made up of two million Quebeckers, major unions and community groups, said that Quebeckers applauded the federal government's Bill C‑64.

They said the following:

Never before have we come so close to implementing a real public, universal pharmacare program. The hybrid public-private system in place in Quebec creates a two-tiered system that is unsustainable and needs to be fixed.

While criticizing the system, they also said this:

We are asking the federal government not to give in to the provinces and territories, which are asking for an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation.

That is the message that Quebeckers are sending to the Bloc Québécois. It is a bit like dental care, where the largest percentage of people advocating for dental care are Quebeckers.

Why does the Bloc Québécois refuse to listen to Quebeckers?