Linda Duncan

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, what has come clear to me is the circumstance that we witness in the House over and over again in the two years of this session of Parliament. I am beginning to suspect that the reason the Liberal members will not vote for the motion is that they did not think of raising it themselves. Time after time, we have had motions that we presented that were really good ideas and the Liberals voted them down, and then a few weeks or a month later, they tabled exactly the same motion, and guess what. We have a majority in favour.

I am sure the Liberal members at the committee are very enthusiastic about pursuing better options. Simply bringing down the cost of drugs is not enough. We need to make sure that all Canadians, no matter how well-to-do they are, no matter where they live in this country—territories, provinces—whether they are indigenous or non-indigenous, whether they are refugees, should have access to drugs so they can have good health and not raise health care costs by their having to go to the hospital.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I also rise to support the motion that we have brought forward.

At the outset, it is important to point out that, when my colleague brought forward the motion, he was very clear that we are calling on the government to begin negotiations with other orders of government. It would be nice if the government also talked to first nations, whom it has excluded from its tables up until now.

The member was reasonable in saying that the negotiations should begin in October a year from now. We are not saying immediately, although it would be nice if we had pharmacare today, but my colleague has given a reasonable time frame. This is a reasonable proposition to the government.

I will give some information toward the end of my speech that will puzzle members on the other side as to why we, not they, had to bring forward the motion.

Many have said in this place that the Standing Committee on Health has been examining the issue of the access to pharmaceuticals to Canadians, the problem of rising costs and the fact that those who are not well endowed with dollars, and are seniors, are not taking the medicines that are actually prescribed to them.

Why was this study commenced by the committee? Why is this a critical issue that we should be dealing with in Canada?

Angus Reid did a survey in 2015, which found that one in seven, or 14% of Canadians, have reported that they or someone in their household did not fill a prescription. They were prescribed a medicine by their doctor but they did not fill it. One in 10 did not renew a prescription. One in seven, or 15%, did things to make a prescription last longer—in other words, took the pills intermittently or cut them in half. More than one in five, or 22%, reported that in the past 12 months they or someone in their household did not take their medicines at all because of the cost.

We have medicare in this country and many, including Tommy Douglas when he proposed medicare, have long called for it to cover everything, including medicines and dental care. I would like to share with this place an excerpt from a speech by Tommy Douglas in 1982, when he said:

Let's not forget that the ultimate goal of Medicare must be to keep people well, rather than just patching them up when they get sick.... It means expanding and improving Medicare by providing pharmacare and denticare programs. All these programs should be designed to keep people well—because in the long run it’s cheaper than the current practice of only treating them after they’ve become sick.

Those are very wise words by our former leader Tommy Douglas.

Who has echoed that study? It was the parliamentary budget officer for Parliament.

The parliamentary budget officer was asked to do a study by the health committee. The parliamentary budget officer set forth to determine if it would be more cost-effective if we had pharmacare or if we continued with this hit or miss system that we have now, where some people have private plans like Blue Cross and others have no plan all. If people are in the hospital they get the medicine, but when they come out they have to pay for it themselves.

What did the parliamentary budget officer determine, having done a very thorough assessment of the costs? This is what he found:

While spending on drugs has grown rapidly (5.1 per cent annually from 2004 to 2014), many Canadians are still unable to obtain necessary drugs because of their cost. This includes an estimated 2 per cent of Canadians who lack drug insurance coverage and 10 per cent of Canadians who have coverage, but lack the financial means to pay for their prescriptions.

There are many Canadians who are working hard and diligently to look after their families, some with two or three jobs, and still they cannot afford to pay for medicine for their family.

The parliamentary budget officer also said:

After accounting for pricing and consumption changes, PBO estimates total drug spending under a national Pharmacare program would amount to $20.4 billion, if implemented in 2015-16. This represents savings of roughly $4.2 billion.

It sounds like a fiscally responsible approach to take, so it would be reprehensible if those in this place do not support this. We have many calls for fiscal responsibility coming from our Conservative colleagues, and I am looking forward to their supporting the motion.

Where are we at in Canada?

As I reported, Angus Reid found that many Canadians, particularly seniors, one in five, were spending $500 or more on prescriptions for the household in the past year, and a total of 7% paid $1,000 or more out of pocket.

Many Canadians can barely afford to pay their rent. A senior approached me when I hosted a tea this summer. She said that her apartment building was being torn down and that she would not be able to afford to move into the new building. She gets the bare minimum of money from Canada pension. She says that she cannot find any place in Edmonton where she can afford to live, let alone be able to buy the prescription drugs she will likely need as she grows older.

Almost 90% of Canadians say that they would support the introduction of a pharmacare program. Canadians are calling for it. The Liberal government says that it is a populace government, that its believes in following what Canadians want to have happen, yet it is not moving forward.

I mentioned that I would share something in my speech about why I was puzzled that my colleague, our critic for health, had to bring this motion forward. The Liberal Party, at its 2016 convention, passed a resolution. The resolution states:

...that The Liberal Party of Canada urge the government of Canada to seize this unique opportunity for serving the public and all levels of government to:

reconvene the first ministers and the health ministers conferences that had this item on their agendas before getting unilaterally aborted by Mr. Harper in 2006;

capitalize on its leadership and widespread national support to have a national PharmaCare plan in place within its first mandate.

If the government supported the motion by my colleague, that this initiative would start one year from now, then it may well be that it could deliver exactly what the membership voted for. Presumably those members in this place who are Liberal card carriers also voted for the resolution.

What did the former minister of health have to say? On CBC's the fifth estate, she said:

There is no question that the current status is not fair, that it's not right, that we're paying much higher prices than other countries are and that's exactly what I'm working on.

She then said:

I've been a family doctor for over 30 years so you don't need to convince me that making sure Canadians have access to appropriate medications is absolutely essential.

Then, on May 8, the member for Oakville said this to The Hill Times:

I wanted to make sure that we continued to have a strong universal health-care program, and there is a need to add a universal pharmacare program to that.

I rest my case, only echoed by Friends of Medicare, a credible organization in my province of Alberta, which fought diligently to protect medicare for Albertans and to fight against the former premier of Alberta's push for two-tiered health care.

We have two-tiered pharmacare in the country, those who are on corporate programs, or a government program where they get some level of subsidy, but the vast of Canadians do not have access to those. Therefore, we essentially have two-tiered pharmacare in this country.

Friends of Medicare have said:

Albertans need a pharmacare program that ensures everyone has access to affordable and safe prescription drugs.

Ensuring universal access to medically necessary prescription drugs is not only the ethical thing to do, it is also fiscally responsible.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my colleague from Alberta speak, but I am a bit surprised at the member's comment, saying that it would not be common sense to institute pharmacare. I know he comes from a party that believes we should be fiscally responsible. The Standing Committee on Health actually commissioned a study through the parliamentary budget officer. He said that Canadians would save up to $4 billion a year if they instituted pharmacare.

If the member believes in being fiscally responsible and in ensuring that all of his constituents have equal access to the medicines they need, does he not believe it would best to take the most fiscally responsible route to providing medicines to Canadians?

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, October 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am seriously troubled. I feel very privileged to be in a caucus with fellow members who represent ridings bordering on the very ocean that we are talking about. Every one of them is sincere in standing up and sharing the views of their constituents. I stood aside as the environment critic in order to give them an opportunity to voice those views.

The hon. minister says there will be lots more opportunity, and this deeply troubles me. Let us look at the reality. The bill would be referred to a committee on which we have one representative, and that one representative may be able to ask a few questions of witnesses and may have the opportunity to propose a few amendments.

I am deeply troubled by the Liberals' track record. They have rejected every amendment that has been put forward in this place. They are sometimes open to amendments by their fellow members in the Senate, but they never accept amendments from here.

Would the minister undertake to not invoke closure on the next reading of this legislation in this place?

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my fellow Prairie MP. It is a delight to have him in our Prairie caucus. He always has very thoughtful ideas to share in this place, which bring us back to what we really should be talking about, which is tax fairness.

I wonder if the member would like to speak to the issue that was raised earlier by a Conservative colleague, that during this consultation period, many farmers were in the field, and many in our country, certainly in British Columbia, were busy fighting for their lives and to save their homes. Any reasonable person would listen to that request by Canadians and say that maybe we should extend the consultation period.

However, we are asking for two things: not to simply extend the consultation period on the very vague reforms that the Liberals are throwing out, but to genuinely put forward, frankly, the reforms the Liberals promised during the election. It would reassuring if we actually had a consultation on the election promises for tax reform, including lowering small business taxes and dealing with the stock option loophole, not to mention tax havens.

I would ask my colleague if he agrees that we should move forward with a longer consultation on the broader issue and that it is regrettable that apparently the Conservatives are not open to having a genuine, broader discussion.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that many in this place have been receiving the same kinds of concerns from constituents. I have met with and heard from a great number of women physicians, many who have set up their own small medical practices and either had children or are wanting to expand their families but are concerned that they will not be able to afford to continue to pay to run their practice while they take maternity leave.

Could the member tell this place how they will address the concerns being raised by female physicians if they put through these changes?

[The Environment, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development today reported that the Liberal government had abjectly failed to take the necessary action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or address the risks posed by climate change. She reported that Canada remained megatonnes away from meeting either the 2020 or 2030 targets.

Stunningly, even Environment and Climate Change Canada is failing to deliver a climate risk and adaptation plan, or an action plan to measure, monitor, and publicly report on emissions.

When will Canadians finally see action on climate change?

[Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, October 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, let me know when I am close to five minutes, because we have very little time left and I would like to give time to my colleague so he can make his closing remarks. I know the bill is very important to him.

I do not want to repeat what everyone else said. I too had the privilege of meeting Bill Browder and hearing the story of Sergei Magnitsky. It is important for us and those following the proceedings to keep in mind that this is about more than a couple of corrupt actors in Russia. There are reprehensible actions that occur around the globe, and the purpose of this legislation is to protect Canadians from receiving corrupt dollars and, frankly, to prevent Canadians from interacting with and having financial dealings with those who seriously violate human rights, are severely corrupt, and may resort to torture. It is important for us to recognize that we are addressing very clear and sordid examples with this legislation. I stand by that.

It was a very sad tale, and it is sad to say that there are many such tales around the world. It is long past time for us to have strong legislation in this country so that our government can move forward expeditiously when it wants to take action to prevent this kind of sordid investment coming here, and to send a message to officials around the world and to those who deal with officials around the world who may be involved in severe violations of human rights, torture, and corruption.

This legislation would also prevent laundered money coming here from around the world. This is something that we can do as one more step to stop this kind of action. It is our way of protecting people in other countries so that corrupt officials cannot get away with their sordid actions.

The purpose of this legislation is to enable us to act in a way that would prevent people from emigrating to this country or coming here to do business, as well as prevent them from investing the profits from their sordid activities. Both are extremely important. It is important that people recognize that we will be able to do twice as many things with this legislation.

In closing, as I mentioned to the hon. member who tabled this bill, it will be equally important that the government act on this legislation. It is one thing to enact a law; it is another to act. I am pleased to hear from the hon. member that there will be measures that would enable individuals to bring forward recommendations for further sanctions.

I look forward to the closing speech.

[Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, October 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank and appreciate the member for spearheading the bill and I welcome the support of all the parties in the House. However, it is one thing to enact the law and it is another thing to use the law.

It will be important for Canadians who are watching to recognize that we do have pretty well all-party support to proceed with the bill, which is long overdue, but we also need to be watchdogging the government so it actually delivers on it. In the last Parliament, our party was trying to get the Conservative government to bring stricter sanctions against Vladimir Yakunin and Igor Sechin. Now this government is moving forward somewhat, but not completely.

Would the member agree that we need to move forward and strengthen the law and the capacity of government to act, but we also need the political will to act?

[Access to Information Act, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, who has worked along with me for many years in fighting for access to information on behalf of Canadians, particularly in the environmental area.

I too share the hon. member's concern that the government has done completely the opposite of what the committee recommended. The committee did recommend that there should be some level of screening of requests for access to information, but that would be done by the neutral commissioner, not by the very institution from which people are seeking the information. It is absolutely stunning. People will have access to information, but the government can decide if it thinks the request is frivolous and vexatious and a waste of time.

It is frankly stunning. The bill does not deliver on what our colleagues on committee recommended.