Debates of June 3rd, 2024

Question No.2580—

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

With regard to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members based out of Canadian Forces Base Valcartier (CFB Valcartier), each year between 2016 and 2024: how many CAF members out of CFB Valcartier have been discharged, in total, and broken down by release category (voluntary, compulsory, medical, etc.) and by reason (service completed, misconduct, etc.)?

(Return tabled)

Question No.2582—

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

With regard to the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA), which is administered by Export Development Canada: (a) what is the total number of loans and total capital (i) issued from the CEBA program since it was first launched on April 9, 2020, (ii) paid back in full by April 17, 2024, (iii) paid back in full by December 31, 2023, (iv) issued and refinanced before March 28, 2024, (v) repaid in full by March 28, 2024; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by province and territory; (c) for each province and territory in (b), what is the breakdown by each sector of the tourism industry, including (i) accommodation, (ii) transportation, (iii) food and beverage services, (iv) recreation and entertainment, (v) travel services; and (d) how many loans have been referred to collections as of April 17, 2024?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Response to Order Paper Question No.2221—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 8 by the member for Simcoe North, concerning the response to Question No. 2221.

In his intervention, the member alleged that, through omission, the Minister of National Revenue misled the House. The member stated that he had asked for a specific set of information through Order Paper Question No. 2221, about overpayments of the Canada child benefit in the event of the death of a child. The corresponding response indicated that the information sought by the member was not collected in a way that permitted an answer to his very specific question. However, the member argued that he successfully obtained, through questioning of a government official at a recent committee meeting, the precise information that he had originally sought through his written question. This, he claimed, illustrated that the government did in fact have the information he wished to receive. He contended that the government attempted to frustrate his ability as a member to obtain factual information through the written question process. He argued that this qualified as a question of privilege that was worthy of examination by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The deputy government House leader countered that there was no intent to mislead the member for Simcoe-North or the House. He explained that the information shared with the member in committee differed from what was asked in question Q‑2221, which was about overpayments of the CCB in the case of a death of a child. However, he claimed that what the member asked in committee was a question about cancelled eligibility for the CCB. The government response that was provided to the written question addressed the issue of overpayments in the event of the death of a child, in as full a fashion as the data permitted. The deputy House leader concluded by asserting that the government answered the question that was asked, and that the response was accurate.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 529, describes the well-established precedent in which the Chair, and past Speakers have consistently responded to complaints about government responses to written questions, and I quote:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege.

The member for Simcoe North knows, as do all members, that the Chair does not parse the responses to written questions, nor judge their quality or delve into their content. The government did provide an answer to its question, though the member argues it was insufficient or incomplete. The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa also complained about the substance of an answer to one of his written questions. While circumstances differed, the conclusion remains the same. The Chair is not empowered to review the content or the quality of answers provided to written questions.

That said, the Chair would, once again, like to reiterate its expectation that the government, in responding to written questions, be as forthcoming as possible in providing members with the information they require to do their job. Members can always seek clarification about their original questions or ask for additional information by providing new written questions on the Order Paper or even by proposing to a committee that it study the subject of their written questions.

Accordingly, the Chair does not find there to be a prima facie question of privilege. I thank all members for their attention.

Business of the House

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, as you suggested earlier, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, be called for debate at second reading on Wednesday, June 5, 2024, and at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders on Wednesday, June 5, 2024, Bill C-61 be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

I would like to thank the hon. members for taking the time to negotiate in good faith behind the curtains.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare, be read the third time and passed.

Pharmacare Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to such an important piece of legislation, our national pharmacare bill, Bill C-64, which was introduced by the member for Ajax, the minister responsible for health care. In my opinion, this particular legislation is a long time coming. When health care, what Canadians have become accustomed to in Canada, was first introduced many decades ago, I think that there was always an expectation that Canada would follow suit with a pharmacare piece of legislation.

Indeed, it is my understanding that Canada is the only country in the world that has a health care plan that does not also have a pharmacare plan. I think that it is incredibly important that this piece of legislation is here. I have been listening to the debate over the last number of weeks regarding this particular bill, and I have found it quite interesting what I have heard in the House about it.

For starters, I want to say that it is a piece of legislation that I see as a starting point. It is a point at which we can start to implement a national pharmacare plan, in particular to help some of the most vulnerable Canadians get access to medications they need. I will address that point in more detail in a moment. More importantly, this is a starting point in the sense that we will start by having two major medications that Canadians use, medications for diabetes and contraceptives for individuals who require them.

I say that because I know that almost four million people in Canada are currently using medications for diabetes. This piece of legislation, even though it is only a starting point covering two specific medications, would certainly have an impact on so many people in our country. With the portion that is just for diabetes, that is nearly four million people on its own.

Bill C-64 would establish a framework, and that is the important thing. It is a framework toward a national universal pharmacare plan in Canada for certain prescription drugs and related products, including free coverage of contraception and diabetes medication, as I have already mentioned. The bill would also provide that the Canadian drug agency work toward the development of a national formula to develop a national bulk purchasing strategy and support the publication of a pan-Canadian strategy regarding the appropriate use of prescription medications.

I think that the part regarding the bulk purchasing strategy is so incredibly important because this is where Canadians would see the benefit of having a national pharmacare plan. The idea that we can, as a whole country, purchase medications in bulk would give us that purchasing power that I think is needed to be able to make the purchases at a fair price, a price point that we as Canadians will ultimately be paying for through our taxes.

Finally, the last part of the bill is that, within 30 days of receiving royal assent, the minister would need to establish a committee of experts to make recommendations regarding the operation and financing of national universal single-payer pharmacare. The committee would be required to provide its report of recommendations to the minister no later than one year after the bill receives royal assent.

As I indicated earlier, when one talks about a program that is this big and this complex, it is important to have that proper oversight and to have a committee of experts making recommendations to the government on how to proceed. When we talk about the number of people who would be impacted by this, I find the conversation in the House to be really interesting, and this is something I alluded to a few moments ago, because it would be a benefit that everybody would be covered under the program. The reason why I say that is that I think it is very easy to make comments, such as I have heard from Conservatives in particular, that so many people are already covered. There are already people who are covered under their private plans. I think about 80% of people are covered in one way or another.

However, not everybody is covered in the exact same way. For starters, at least 20% of people are not covered under any plan, and these would be the most vulnerable because these are people who would have to go to the drug store to pay for their medication out of pocket. On the other end of the spectrum, there are a lot of people who are fully covered, and there are some really good plans out there. There are some really good employers. There are some really good institutions that provide plans to their employees and family members that are going to cover a lot, up to, in many cases, 100% of the cost of medication. Then, there is everything in between concerning what the coverage is and how much coverage there is. This is why it is so important that we talk about universal coverage. Sure, 80% of people might have some degree of coverage, but not everybody is covered the exact same way. I think it is extremely important that everybody has the same basic universal coverage.

When we look at the way we are treated when we go into hospitals, everybody is treated the exact same way. At least, it is supposed to be this way, and it could be argued that provinces are setting up things differently. If we go into a hospital emergency room, we will see triage. The hospital will determine the critical nature of a person's visit, how quickly a person needs to be dealt with, and everybody is treated the exact same way. Most importantly, when we are done and when we leave the hospital, we just go home. There is no one asking for a credit card or a billing address. We have the luxury of having a health care system that covers everybody, which does not ask people to pay when they are in, quite frankly, what would be their most vulnerable state.

I think one of the problems with my generation, and generations after mine and a few before, would be that the idea of having to pay for medical care seems almost foreign. It certainly does to me. I never think to myself, “Wow, I should go get this checked out, but what's it going to cost me to do that?” That is never something that enters my mind.

Members can just imagine that, if I were living in the United States, for example, there would be a lot of people who actually have to make that choice. They say, “Well, I should get checked out, but what is it going to cost me to do that?” This is one of those luxuries that we have with a single universal health care system such that we have here in Canada. It is not something that enters our mind because I think we believe, as a society, that there is a certain onus to take care of each other when it comes to our health care, which is what our health care system provides, notwithstanding the fact that we could get particular about what different provinces are attempting to do now. However, that is the reality of the situation.

When we talk about pharmacare and the drugs that we also need to be healthy, we have to ask ourselves why they are not treated the exact same way. What I see with the bill before us is an attempt to move in that direction.

There are two very important, or at least very popular, medications that a lot of Canadians use to start with. This comes from the same premise that, when somebody needs to take care of diabetes, for example, or somebody wants access to contraceptive medication, they should not have to filter into the equation of the decision whether they would have to pay for it, for starters, as 20% of the population would, or how much of it they would have to pay for. They should not have to ask, “Do I have to pay for a portion of it? Does my coverage only cover 60%, and so I have to pay 40%? Does that make it worthwhile to do this?” Canadians should not have to think that perhaps they could go against their doctor's advice and not get the medication because they think they will be fine.

These questions should not be asked by Canadians. There are a lot of seniors out there who rely on a lot of medications who should not have to say, “I have to make a decision between getting the medication I need or buying food.” They should not be making those choices, and they should not be saying that maybe they will only take half the dosage they have been prescribed because at least then they are still taking something but are not spending as much.

When we talk about health care and pharmacare, it is my position that it should be treated in the same way that we talk about health care and accessing care in terms of going to see a physician or going to the hospital. That is why I think the pharmacare bill is so important, because, as I said, it certainly does not cover every drug. It actually covers only two very important and widely used drugs, but it sets the framework for how things can evolve from here.

One of the things I find really interesting, when we are having this discussion about universality and the fact that it is just two pieces of very important medication, is what I have been hearing from Conservatives to this point. They are getting upset over the fact that it would not cover a lot and a lot of people would not be covered. They are basically saying that more should be invested. I have heard the member from Battle River—Crowfoot talking about how we are not doing enough. Nonetheless, they will still vote against the bill.

I cannot help but wonder why they are saying we need to do more, but then are against the idea fundamentally. I do not know whether Conservatives are doing what we have seen them do a number of times before, which is to start by talking about a piece of legislation and trying to critique it all day long, only to then vote in favour of it when the time comes, or whether they have a plan for universal pharmacare that is even more ambitious than this one. I find myself somewhere in between, trying to figure out what they are really trying to get at with this.

At the end of the day, we know that this is something that would help Canadians. We know, and I strongly believe, that the concept of having a universal pharmacare system, in the long run to cover many more drugs, is certainly my goal. That would be to the great benefit of all Canadians.

The legislation is a huge step forward in delivering better health care to Canadians. As I said, it lays out the plan for universal single-payer coverage for contraception and for diabetes medication. This would mean nine million women and gender-diverse Canadians all across the country could get access to the contraception and reproductive autonomy that they deserve.

Notwithstanding the fact that lately we have heard some Conservatives start to talk and to reopen discussions about reproductive autonomy from decades ago, the reality is that we believe that when somebody makes choices about what to do with their body, in particular when it comes to reproductive aspects, they should be able to make those choices. A woman should be able to make those choices. In my opinion, the government should be there to support them in making whatever choice they think is the best for them as an individual.

Although the piece of legislation before us, as I previously said, would not cover every medication, or a lot more medication as I would ultimately like to see, it certainly would be a starting point, a place to begin. It would be a place to lay the groundwork. It would be a place to engage the experts to provide feedback as to how we could move forward. It would allow us to start somewhere significant, given the number of Canadians it would affect, and then from there, to grow.

I am really looking forward to the day when we can say that our pharmacare and the medications that Canadians depend on so much will be treated in the exact same manner that we see in the rest of our health care system, in particular when we go to visit a doctor or we have to go to an emergency room, as I described earlier.

I really hope Conservatives vote in favour of this at the end of the day, despite some of what I have been hearing. This is a great opportunity to show the country that the bill is not something we will make political and that it is something that truly would benefit many Canadians. It would help the 20% or so of people who might not have some degree of coverage. It would equalize the very well-off people with some of the most vulnerable in our communities by saying it does not matter what one's socio-economic status is and it does not matter what one's income level is. We respect the fact that all Canadians should have access to the medications they need so badly, and that their doctors, through our health care system, could provide it to them.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the place to start with pharmacare should have been with the people who have no money to cover medication, and that is in the catastrophic category of people who need medication but cannot afford it because it is not worth a drug company's while to mass-manufacture the drug. That being said, we have experienced shortages in medication, particularly for diabetics, in the not-so-distant past.

Given that there are so many people with diabetes and that it would be difficult to triage people on a one-on-one basis, how would the government decide who gets the medication and who does not, in the instance of a drug shortage? In other words, how would the government decide who lives and who dies?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the first part of her question, the member should know that there is already a program in place that specifically deals with rare diseases and the drugs associated with them. That angle of it is actually already covered.

With respect to her question about shortages, this is exactly why a national program like this, where we could purchase in bulk, makes sense. Companies that supply and that bid on bulk sales would know exactly what the demands would be based on what the government is asking for. They would also be helped to be able to produce the devices and drugs.

It does not take somebody who has been in business a long time to understand that when they have a customer, such as a government that asks for a certain product, or they get into a contract to manufacture a certain product, they will have to start delivering that product. I think we would steer away from the shortage problems.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member said that it was important to have the expertise required and a committee of experts to analyze things. We do, in fact, have expertise in this area, and it is in Quebec.

My question is simple. What is the problem with the decentralization of funds to Quebec, which could work fully in its own jurisdiction, in an area where it already has a system in place?

It is important to remember that Quebec is ahead of Canada in these areas. That is the case in almost every social area. All of the parties recognize that. Why crush this system with something new when we already have a system that works and that could be improved upon? We have the same objectives and we agree on the basic premise. Why then does the federal government not want to transfer the amounts with no strings attached?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member asked what the problem with it is. The problem is that I want to learn from that expertise. He is saying that Quebec already knows everything so Quebec should just be left alone. I am saying that the whole point in bringing the experts together is to learn. I want the experts in Ontario to learn from the experts in Quebec, because I think that, yes, Quebec is very successful at a lot of things. If the member is correct in everything he is saying, the rest of Canada has a lot to learn. I am looking forward to that learning opportunity with the incredible experts who obviously exist in Quebec already, as per what the member just said.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands in his speech observed a unique Conservative critique that we have heard emerge. The Conservatives criticize policies as not being good enough, and then they vote against them entirely. If pharmacare is not perfect, the answer, in their minds, is no pharmacare whatsoever. If dental care excludes some Canadians, instead of amending or improving it, the answer is no dental care unless someone has private coverage. If Canada ranks 62nd out of 67 countries on climate change, then the answer is somehow to have no climate plan.

What does the member make of this unique logic?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that when I said that, the message got across. I was not exactly sure how to phrase it, but it is exactly what the member is saying. That is what we are seeing. The member for Battle River—Crowfoot said, in his 20-minute speech, that the system would not be a good one because it would not be for these people or those people, and that therefore we need no system.

Conservatives do the same thing on just about every issue. I do not know why they are doing this. I wanted to ask the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, if he does not like the proposed pharmacare plan, to tell us about his pharmacare plan, because we know they do not have one.

I just find it incredibly rich to continually hear Conservatives get up to talk down programs, almost implying that they would bring along an even better program. However, I think there is nobody in this room, and no Canadian who looks at this stuff objectively, who would think that Conservatives would be interested in a pharmacare plan, because we know they would not be.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the fact that the program would be addressing two main elements, contraceptives and diabetes. I am thinking from the affordability angle and would like to hear his comments on that. We know when people are all of a sudden confronted with a huge expense or an unexpected, long-term expense what that can do to their budget. I would like to hear him comment on how the pharmacare program would help.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the affordability aspect of it, I think, is really important. I do not think it really matters what one's economic background or economic status is, but if any Canadian were to go into a hospital and receive a bill afterward, any of us would be taken aback by that just because of the concept. I have friends who live in the United States. One gave birth recently and received a bill for $26,000. It is absolutely insane.

The same logic has to apply to the medications we need. It is not even just about helping people with the costs; it is also about the investment. If we help people take care of themselves now, we are not going to have to pay as much when they end up in the hospital because they were not able to afford the medications they were prescribed.

What the bill is really about, and what I tried to emphasize in my speech, is that there are varying levels of affordability right now. Some people, 20% or so, have absolutely no coverage. Some people have the platinum level of coverage where they do not have to pay anything. Then there is everybody else in between. Some people pay 60%, and some people pay 40%, 20%,10% or whatever it is depending on who is covering them. At the end of the day, in my opinion, the coverage needs to be universal, just like the coverage is universal when it comes to receiving health care from a physician or in a hospital.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, normally we see a lot of fireworks back and forth from the member to our side, and we did not see that in this speech, which is appreciated.

I have a straightforward question. I think it was brought up by my colleague from the Bloc. Health care is provincial jurisdiction. The provinces are mostly covering a lot of things for low-income people or those who are not covered. Alberta does the same for the items that are in the bill for birth control and diabetes.

The question is this: Because the provinces are already doing that, why not just fund the provinces to allow them to expand their programs rather than creating a duplicate process federally?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, on the member's comment, I apologize if I was not on my game and did not give him the fiery speech he was expecting, I will work on that for next time.

All I will say is that is a great suggestion. I am sure there is a really good answer to it and that committee could get down to it. I will say to the member that it is the first real question I have heard from that side that I have actually had to reflect on. I do not mind saying that maybe he has a good point. Let us have a debate on that rather than having a debate on the false narratives that are going on.

I know the members of the Bloc would say that they asked me the same thing, but the point is this: I believe that it is just like health care as it relates to physician care or hospital care, which is something that is established by the federal government and the actual implementation is done by the provinces. Can universal pharmacare get to that place and what the member is suggesting? Yes, it might be the case that one day that is where we can get to, but the standard has to be the same across the entire country. That is the really important thing and what I fear might be lacking if we allowed what he suggested to happen.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Saskatoon West, or as we fondly know him, the member from Saskatoon West Edmonton Mall.

I rise on Bill C-64, which is officially called an act respecting pharmacare. I have two other names for it. One is the proper Liberal name of the bill, which is “fake news to satisfy the gullible NDP caucus act,” and then the longer title is the NDP “I hope no one notices we said we would force an election unless we got a comprehensive and entirely public pharmacare program but sold out for little act.” I am being a bit sarcastic here, but this is the truth.

The government has repeatedly stood in the House and said it is extensive pharmacare, but it is not. It is two items. The NDP members have constantly stood up with their colleagues across the way in the senior partnership, or the radical wing of the NDP, and said it is comprehensive pharmacare that is single pay. Despite what they would have one believe, it would just cover two items.

It does potentially cover diabetes drugs and birth control, but we do not know the details. What it would not do is cover the chronic diseases Canadians are suffering from most. The top ones are hypertension, osteoarthritis, mood and anxiety disorders, osteoporosis, asthma, obstructive pulmonary disease, ischemic heart disease, cancer, dementia and, rounding out the top list, diabetes. Only one item would be covered out of the major chronic issues that are diseases or afflictions hurting Canadians. Where is the coverage for those? It is nowhere to be found, which is why the government and other people in the House should not be calling it a pharmacare act.

The Liberals can name it a potential pharmacare act down the road, but they should not be misleading Canadians into believing that this is a pharmacare act. I asked where the coverage was for hypertension. Eight million Canadians suffer from this. Four million Canadians have osteoarthritis, two million have osteoporosis, and four million are suffering from asthma. How many of them would be covered by this so-called pharmacare act? The answer is zero. Two million Canadians are suffering from obstructive pulmonary disease. Not one would be covered. On ischemic heart disease, 2.4 million Canadians are suffering from this. Not one would be covered under this plan. Forty per cent of Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, with 250,000 new cases every year. Not one would be covered under this so-called pharmacare act. For dementia, 750,000 people are affected, and not one would be covered. Where is the coverage?

I want to get back to my admittedly snarky comments about the NDP. I want to quote the National Post, which reads, “NDP members drew a line in the sand by passing an emergency resolution at their policy convention in Hamilton...that says the party should withdraw its support if the Liberals do not commit to ‘a universal, comprehensive and entirely public pharmacare program.’”

If one looks up the word “comprehensive”, the definition is, “complete, including all or nearly all aspects of something”. Is this all or nearly all aspects of pharmaceuticals? No, of course it is not. Anne McGrath, the New Democratic Party's national director, “said getting a bill that has teeth will be her party's biggest priority as parliamentarians return to the House of Commons”.

Canada has about 9,000 approved pharmaceutical drugs. The bill would cover maybe 200, so where are the other 8,800? Anne McGrath further stated, “Weak legislation is not going to be acceptable to New Democrats”. Maybe 200 for diabetes and birth control out of 9,000 seems to be acceptable.

She said, “It has to be strong. It has to have teeth. And I feel like that resolution gave [the NDP leader] and the caucus a lot of bargaining power. It gives them a lot of strength.” I wonder when my colleagues in the NDP are going to be withdrawing their support. They probably will not.

One issue I brought up in an earlier question is that a large majority of Canadians are covered, but some are slipping through the cracks. Some are not covered, and some are only partially covered, but they are covered by the province. Alberta, for example, covers most of the items brought up. Essentially, B.C., Quebec and Ontario do as well. Pretty much every province, except one or two in Atlantic Canada, covers diabetes or birth control for low-income Canadians. However, they are not covering the other items of importance, such as hypertension and some of the others.

The initial phase of this is going to cost about a billion and a half dollars. That money could be better used, by either giving it to the provinces for rounding out the services or, better yet, focusing on Canadians afflicted with rare diseases. A couple of families came to my office. Their young children were suffering from SMA, spinal muscular atrophy. It is a horrible disease. Generally, it is a death sentence by the time the child is two years of age. At about the time the children of these two families in Edmonton were diagnosed, a new drug had come out; it is called Spinraza. I have to give points to the pharmaceutical companies for how they come up with these names. Spinraza does not cure the disease, but it extends life to about 18 years old. Children would not have a great quality of life, but they could live to their late teens.

When Spinraza came on the market, Rachel Notley's NDP was in power in Alberta. We went to the local MLAs in the NDP to see if we could speed up coverage for the drug in Alberta; however, the NDP refused to look at this. The same NDP that says it is a line in the sand that it will force an election over refused to help this family. When the provincial United Conservatives were elected, Tyler Shandro was the health minister. He was much maligned, and I am sure a lot of it was probably deserved. However, he managed to get Spinraza approved for the family within two weeks. It is a very expensive drug.

Along came a better drug called Zolgensma. I truly believe it is a miracle drug. With Spinraza, children would spend about a month a year in intensive care, getting spinal taps and everything, for their treatment. Instead of that, Zolgensma is one shot in the arm. It seeks out the bad gene and copy-pastes the good gene over, basically stopping the disease in its track and giving the children a chance at a strong life. It would be about $45 million a year to treat everyone afflicted with this, everyone born every year in Canada. This is where the government should spend this money. It should focus on that.

It should not be spending money to replace programs that already exist. About 60% of Canadians have a program delivered through work. Instead of subsidizing that 60%, it should look after people like this in need. These two families had to fundraise for this drug. Ryan Reynolds, who was in Deadpool, helped fundraise for these two families. Luckily enough, a corporate benefactor came through and provided for everyone in Canada. This is an example where that billion and a half dollars could be better spent.

Another couple in my riding had a child suffering from PKU, which is a rare inherited disorder. It causes a buildup in amino acid in the body and prevents it from metabolizing protein. Children cannot have protein. It costs $5,000 a month out-of-pocket. The government should look after covering this.

Twenty-seven million Canadians already have coverage through work. This Liberal single-payer plan is going to subsidize either the companies that are already paying for this or big pharma. It is funny that big pharma just got an extra tax for too much profit through the Liberal government, a temporary Canada recovery dividend to attack big pharma, which it is now going to subsidize. It could also subsidize companies directly, including Loblaws. At the same time as it is demonizing Loblaws in the House, it will end up subsidizing it. Therefore, I do not support the act as it is. There are better ways to do it than the way the Liberals and NDP are doing it.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member across the way, and the Conservative Party's approach in general, in terms of dealing with the issue of pharmacare. The member seems to be saying that we have all these medications that are out there and asking why we are limiting pharmacare to two. The short answer is that this is a very significant first step, and there is a substantial cost to it. The bill would ensure that we do not get a varying patchwork wherein the province in which one happens to live determines what kind of a fee one would actually be paying. We have literally 100-plus different types of plans out there, including public and private; I would suggest there might even be some non-profit stuff out there.

Does the member not recognize the true value of moving forward on such an important issue as pharmacare and that one way he can do so is by supporting the legislation?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that a huge number of Canadians, the majority, are already covered by plans, either through the government or through their work. The government should be looking for and helping those who are slipping through the cracks or those who have no coverage or nearly no coverage. It should not be looking at subsidizing big corporations, so they do not have to provide it to their employees, or subsidizing big pharma for these things. It should look after those slipping through the cracks or those who have no coverage at all.