Brigitte Sansoucy

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as one of my colleagues said, if adding the word “territory” will get the Liberal government to vote for this motion, I will happily do so.

Yes, the Standing Committee on Health is doing excellent work, but the Canada Health Act guarantees the universality and accessibility of health care, which is why we need a universal public pharmacare system. The federal government needs to take the lead on that. It is our job to take the lead.

Health is a jurisdiction we share with the provinces and territories. We have to work with them to ensure that each and every Canadian can get their prescription drugs, whether they can cover the cost themselves or need to get them for free because they are poor. All Canadians must get the medication they need to take care of themselves. We cannot be the only major industrialized country whose health insurance plan does not include universal public pharmacare. We can certainly start that conversation with the provinces and territories right away.

While the health committee carries on with its excellent work, I think we can start negotiations now. Canadians are suffering as we speak because they do not have the means to buy the medications they need.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I am honoured to be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague from Edmonton Strathcona.

Close to 8 million Canadians have no drug coverage whatsoever, because Canada is one of the few industrialized nations that offers health care without offering medicare. Without medication, there can be no treatment. Health care without drugs is inconceivable.

We have heard specific examples all day long. In each of the ridings we represent, there are people who are unable to afford the medication they need. It is time for the government to find a solution to this problem.

In Quebec, we pay for our prescription drugs through a hybrid public-private insurance plan. Those whose employers have a plan are required to join. For all others, there is a public plan. This mandatory system guarantees better access than in the other provinces, but it is ineffective in containing spiralling costs.

The solution the NDP is proposing today is to implement a universal pharmacare program. According to data from sources such as the parliamentary budget officer, universal pharmacare would improve access to prescription drugs for Canadians and save billions annually.

The parliamentary budget officer's report, entitled “Federal Cost of a National Pharmacare Program”, which was released on September 28, reveals that a national pharmacare program would actually save Canadians $4.2 billion a year.

Professor Marc-André Gagnon, an expert in public policy at Carleton University here in Ottawa, estimates that the government could cut its spending in half. That is why we are calling on the government to begin negotiations with the provinces within the next year to bring in such a pharmacare program.

I simply do not understand how this government can continue to ignore the benefits of implementing a national pharmacare system. Why wait, when people are suffering today because they do not have the drugs they need?

I will go over all the reasons why this system would be much better for Canadians. According to the brief presented to the Standing Committee on Health in November 2015, a universal system would reduce the cost of drugs by over $1 billion through the use of evidence-based therapeutic options. A number of Liberals have said so today. There would be an additional savings of more than $1 billion from the elimination of administrative costs related to private insurers.

Did members of the House know that a hundred or so generic drugs are more expensive in Canada than they are in the United Kingdom, France, and the United States? Why is it so expensive to get care in Canada? In addition to these potential savings, drug reimbursements would increase and the process would be simplified. Private plans cover millions of people in different ways. Each has its own conditions, restrictions, and co-payments, and every time a person needs a prescription drug, they have to check whether that drug is covered by their plan.

In 2015, more than one in five Canadian households were not taking their prescribed drugs because of the cost. With a public, universal pharmacare program, prescription drug prices would drop and drug reimbursements would increase for everyone. The process would be simplified because there would no longer be so many private players proposing countless plans and sometimes preventing the consumer from making an informed choice.

According to the same brief submitted to the Standing Committee on Health, a national pharmacare program can improve drug safety, mainly by limiting the number of insured drugs and ensuring that they are chosen carefully, in the interest of patient health and safety. Currently, Canada has no national strategy for integrating the safe and appropriate use of prescription drugs into the Canadian health care culture.

Both patients and prescribers have access to only a limited amount of unbiased information, which creates disparities and confusion.

A single list based on sound evidence would help to make sure that drugs are used properly, while taking into account their therapeutic value for patients. It is estimated that 80% of new drugs do not offer any added therapeutic benefit compared to less expensive drugs that are already on the market.

In countries that have a universal pharmacare program, the price of both patented and generic drugs is negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies. Buying drugs for entire populations gives these countries a lot of bargaining power. Depending on the plan, they negotiate the bulk price, establish budgets, hold competitive bidding processes for companies, and consider bundling several drugs.

Most drug expenditures come from thousands of private plans wherein people either have absolutely no power to negotiate lower prices or have no interest in doing so because workers and employers are the ones who pay for the drugs, not the insurance companies. The negotiations the provinces hold for their public plans have led to higher prices for the rest of the population, who are covered by private plans or who have no coverage. A universal pharmacare plan would give the government more power to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.

This would also be the end of a no-win research and development strategy dictated by major pharmaceutical companies. The cost of newly approved medications is set by a federal body, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. This board examines the price of medications in other countries and uses the median price to set the Canadian price. However, the countries used for comparison purposes are those with the highest prices in the world, so we end up with unnecessarily high prices. This approach was intentional; it is part of an industrial policy that aims to increase the investments of pharmaceutical companies in research and development and job creation. It is no wonder the Liberals talked about research all day long. This policy, however, has proven to be an abject failure because investments in research and development between 1998 and 2013 declined dramatically compared to sales. It is high time to curb the powers of pharmaceutical groups in Canada.

Currently, New Brunswick, Alberta, and Quebec do offer pharmacare programs, but so far, we have only seen action on the provincial level. We need the federal government to show true leadership, because it is lagging behind on this issue. Quebec may be ahead of the curve once again, but that does not mean that it should have to sustain the entire system alone, when we have the means to implement a national, universal, and publicly funded pharmacare program.

The federal government needs to do more for all Canadians. If we had an entirely publicly funded universal pharmacare program, the Quebec government alone would save an estimated $1 billion a year. Currently, Quebec residents are required to join their employer's private plan. The problem is that, for some types of employees, the cost of these private drug insurance programs represents a significant proportion of their salary. After paying the premiums, they do not have enough left over to pay for medication. On top of the potential savings to Quebec, a universal pharmacare program would relieve employers of a huge cost, enabling them to be more competitive and offer higher salaries and added benefits.

Lastly, a universal pharmacare program would be more fair for all Canadians. It would allow our poorest citizens to receive their medication for free. We have heard many examples today of people unable to afford their medication. We need to make sure that no one in Canada has to choose between paying for the medication they need and feeding their family. This cannot wait. For too many opposition days, we have heard the Liberals say they are going to oppose the motion so they can propose something better. Enough is enough.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague, and throughout his speech I only heard arguments in favour of the motion. All his arguments supported the fact that a universal pharmacare program is important.

We are the only major industrial country that offers health care insurance but not a drug plan. As the parliamentary budget officer stated, how can we pass up $4.2 billion a year? What I heard was a number of arguments in support of today's motion. I presume that my colleague will be voting for the motion.

[Public Services and Procurement, October 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, another new story has come out about Phoenix. Apparently, the government was going to save taxpayers $688 million by using this new program, but as everyone knows, the opposite is true. The Phoenix fiasco has been dragging on for almost two years, and thousands of workers are still seeing no light at the end of the tunnel.

Now that they are halfway through their term in office, will the Liberals stop blaming the Conservatives, do their job, and make sure that Phoenix works for all public servants?

[Medical Assistance in Dying, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, having sat on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, I am well aware that it is a sensitive and complex issue. We heard from hundreds of witnesses and I read thousand of pages on the topic. Of course these are sensitive and complex issues.

When the legislation was passed 15 months ago, many people who are suffering were disappointed to learn that they are not eligible. People who are suffering who want to have access to medical assistance in dying are being told they are not entitled to it.

Calls for advance requests from citizens are getting louder, and they are being told to wait even longer. That response was much too theoretical for these people who are suffering and have to wait indefinitely for the government.

Striking a committee to examine advance requests must be made a priority, and we need to hold the government to account now. It is important to realize that we are talking about human lives, people who are sick and suffering, who want to exercise their right to die with dignity. The government must act as soon as possible on the issue of advance requests.

[Medical Assistance in Dying, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on May 2, I rose in the House to ask questions about the impartiality of the working group set up by the government to study the issue of advance requests and broadening eligibility for medical assistance in dying.

The appointment of Dr. Harvey Schipper as chair of the working group was accepted by the minister, even though Dr. Schipper opposed medical assistance in dying and advance requests.

This appointment was also criticized by several stakeholders. Even though Dr. Harvey Schipper stepped down from his position and was replaced by Marie Deschamps, the issue of medical assistance in dying, and especially advance requests, is still current.

The former health minister, the hon. member for Markham—Stouffville, promised to strike committees to study the issue of incapacity and advance requests, cases where medical assistance in dying was denied and not administered in the past year, and the issue of mature minors, to determine if a minor suffering from an incurable or painful illness can request medical assistance in dying. However, once again, there has been no decisive action from the Liberal government.

Once again, Quebec is ahead of the federal government on this issue. In 2013, it tabled a working group report on incapacity and struck a committee to handle advance requests and broaden eligibility for medical assistance in dying. However, Quebec's efforts are hampered by its compliance with federal legislation, even though it is essential that provinces and territories work in close collaboration with the federal government to avoid an over-hasty approach, as is the case in this situation.

I sat on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, and many of our recommendations were not taken into consideration when the federal law was drafted.

I am also concerned about people who are ill and suffering but are no longer able to request medical assistance in dying because they have a mental illness or dementia, such as Alzheimer's-related dementia. A decision needs to be made on the issue of advance consent and whether a person with dementia or mental illness can make an advance request while they are still in full possession of their mental faculties, before the disease progresses.

That is a critical issue that the government must address, particularly following the compassionate killing of Jocelyne Lizotte by her husband. It is also vitally important that citizens have faith in the system and feel as though they have the guidance they need to avoid any possible abuse.

According to Bill C-14, there are many criteria that a person must meet in order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying. For example, they must be at the end of their life, have a serious and incurable illness, be in an advanced state of decline, be enduring physical or psychological suffering, and so on. The most shocking is the criteria of reasonably foreseeable death. The government must clarify that provision, which does not make any sense.

Obviously, we are all going to die one day. The Liberal government is not telling us anything that we do not already know. It is unacceptable that people who are ill have to go back to the courts to assert their right to die in dignity because they do not clearly meet all of the criteria. We must not forget that medical assistance in dying is a right and that those who are ill and suffering and who want to die in dignity do not have the strength to fight for that right.

I am well aware that this is sensitive issue, but doing nothing is not going to solve the problem. When will the Liberal government truly take into account the issues of advance requests, mature minors, and people who are not capable of asking for medical assistance in dying? When will it actually set up those committees? We look forward to seeing results.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that he does not have to convince me of the importance of agriculture, since I am proud to represent a world-renowned agrifood technopole.

What fascinates me today is that my colleague and his Liberal colleagues have to spend all day explaining to agricultural producers that they have nothing to worry about. This morning, I met with a young agricultural producer who is also president of the Haut-Richelieu Chamber of Commerce and Industry. She told me she was worried about the reform.

If people are still worried, they need time to understand. If the Liberals want to explain just how perfect the reform is for them, they should take the time they need. Between July 18 and October 1, agricultural producers do not have time to study the issue. If an agricultural producer who is also president of her chamber of commerce is still worried this morning, it is because we need more time.

If the Liberals want to represent and listen to them, why do they not give them the time to express themselves?

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, we all agree that taxation must be fair and equitable. What I do not understand is why the Liberal government chooses to target small and medium-sized enterprises and farmers first.

During the campaign, the Liberals promised to introduce more global tax reform. They spoke of the $100 billion being declared under all sorts of complex measures, including the loophole around CEO stock options, for lost revenues totalling $750 million.

What is more, they could have went after tax havens. Rather, after voting in favour of our motion in that regard, they signed an agreement with the Cook Islands. There are many aspects of the tax system they could address, but they chose to go after SMEs and farmers. The Liberals are attempting to reassure, but people are concerned. They manufactured this concern by announcing this move in the middle of the summer so there would be no time to discuss it.

Will the Liberals agree to take a broader look at the tax system and extend the consultation period to listen to the people they say they want to listen to?

[Employment Insurance, October 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to help seasonal workers by solving the spring gap problem. However, it has been two years and nothing has been done. Meanwhile, seasonal workers in New Brunswick and across Canada will be left without an income to support their families. Instead of solving this problem once and for all, the Liberals are asking them to wait for a rise in unemployment. What a joke! Why is the government breaking its promise and turning its back on seasonal workers?

[Access to Information Act, September 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, not only is it possible to improve this bill, it is vital that we do so.

Yesterday at an event, I noticed how popular my colleague is with young women.

I am the mother of teenagers and young adults. I have noticed among some of my constituents that younger people want and have access to information. I am always amazed to see how much more my children know than I did when I was their age. They want to know. They seek information. They will quickly realize that they have hit a wall when it comes to accessing information.

To meet current needs, it is vital that we have real legislation that provides access to information. Today, people want to know and it is their right; they need information. We have to give them the means to access it.