Debates of May 6th, 2024

Second reading

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

Yes, we are the same age, Mark.

Now we have a chance to expand it to include pharmacare, and I think this is a wonderful opportunity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. member that he is not to call a member by his first name or his last name; however, “hon. member” is fine.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was struck by the member's comments about someone needing to go for a colonoscopy and not being able to afford the prep. I have heard this in my riding as well. I have heard it in regards to dental care also, that they are not being able to pay the $5 or $10 to go to dental care.

I would just ask the member if he could share how important it is that people have basic access to medication to stay proactively healthy.

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

Madam Speaker, this is something I did not have time in my speech to get to, but the reality is that when people are able to take the medication that their doctors prescribe, they are often able to get better. When they get better, that means they are not showing up at the doors of the emergency room. They are not ending up in hospital beds for long hospital stays. We know that it costs $1,000 a day to have someone in our hospitals, and these are all costs that are borne by our system.

The bill before us is about making people's lives better, first and foremost, but also, when we look down the road at public pharmacare, universal pharmacare, we see that it is going to save our society, as a whole, billions of dollars through bulk purchasing and through allowing people to lead healthier lives. I think that is a huge, positive move in the right direction.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, those at home watching this may be wondering who does not want this. This is child care 2.0. However, the reality, as we know, is that, like this morning, there was a British Columbia mother who was saying that she was going to be homeless because she cannot find child care.

I just had a text from a dentist. I asked them what they thought of the dental program. The reply was that it is an absolutely amazing election slogan. That is exactly what has happened here.

My question to the member opposite, who props up the Liberals continuously, is this: Why does he think the Liberals will actually deliver this? It is almost abusive to watch what they do to the NDP because they will not deliver what they said they would. My question is this: Is he okay with that?

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, pointing out the shortcomings of health care programs is an argument to make them stronger, not to gut them and to get rid of them altogether.

However, I will ask my colleague this question: Looking forward a year from now, when her constituents in Kawartha are looking west to British Columbia and are seeing that their fellow Canadians are getting their diabetes medication, their diabetes devices and their contraception provided for free under universal pharmacare, how is she going to explain to her constituents that they are not part of that program because her province did not get on board because she did not support it?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He shared such amazing points today about the importance of looking after Canadians.

I am standing today, as a woman in Parliament, discussing one of the most important aspects of women's health and daily life: access to contraceptives. This health care measure is currently restricted by whether one can afford to access it or not. It should not be that way. Every time I enter this place, I am aware of how different my experiences are from the men who have not had to deal with regular menstrual cycles, painful periods, ovarian cysts, PMS and PMDD, endometriosis, menstrual migraines and unintended pregnancy. These are part of daily life when one has ovaries, starting in one's teens. Having ovaries requires management and affects everyday choices for school, work, recreation and more.

With that in mind, I am going to take a moment to read a poem by my daughter Coral. She is a writer and a poet. I wanted to share it because it shows how periods affect women, girls and non-binary people, from their very early teens. It is called Late Bloomer.

In the seventh grade, all my friends started menstruating,
but not me.
We would travel in a gossiping group to the school
washroom and I would listen as my
friends ripped tape inside stalls.
In high school, we had swimming in gym. I had a hard
time with a box of “easy applicators”.
I cried, one foot propped up on the toilet.
I lied on the ground, tried to raise my hips and contort my
body to be comfortable.
The garbage filled with failure. I surrendered to pads.
Diapers, my friends called them.
I would hide panic as girls exchanged tampons in cute
pink wrappers. Once a pad fell out of my bag, I snatched
it up, cheeks shame red.
I concealed pads far up sleeves and deep down in
pockets. On days I forgot a pad I settled for folded tissues
and tied my jacket around my waist.
Today, I borrowed a pad from a stranger.
Her cheeks weren't red and neither were mine. bloom,
bloom, bloom

“Bloom, bloom, bloom” is how I see this bill. It is time to blossom. It is a bill that sets in place a framework to consider the needs of women, girls and transgender people who menstruate.

My message to the men in power across the globe, including in Canada, who have spent their legislative time trying to control women and their bodies, while ignoring the enhancements that are there in basic health care, is to stop it, and let this bill bloom.

At a time when the possibility of gender equity remains elusive, what gives me hope is that in this bill, and currently in the tabled budget, the needs of women are starting to make their way onto the main stage, after 150 years. Affordable child care, free contraceptives, the red dress alert from my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, a caregiving strategy and a sectoral table on care economy are all women's issues that the Conservatives and the Liberals have ignored for decades.

With that in mind, that is what causes me worry. The Conservatives in the House are rejecting these important advancements for women and, at the same time, are working against us by espousing that they would override women's charter rights on a whim. Conservatives are dangerous to women. If they ever had the power, they would immediately go after a woman's right to choose, just like what has happened in the United States. I never want to see that happen.

Not only would Bill C-64 help women as a framework for historic expansion of health care to single-payer pharmacare, but also the first rollout would give access to life-saving medication and devices for diabetics.

Linda, a resident in my riding, recently told me she estimates that, since she was diagnosed with diabetes over 40 years ago, she has spent over $120,000 on medication and devices to manage it. This is unfair. She has had to spend thousands of dollars a month just to stay alive. While I am on the topic of gender equity, Linda shared that she was 26 when she was diagnosed. She went to the doctor. She was single at the time, and the doctor said to just go find herself a husband, and she would be fine. This is what happens when someone cannot afford their medication or when society decides that women should not have economic empowerment and that they would not be able to afford their medication on their own.

Even with the loss of the life of a diabetic, if they do not get their medication, the Conservatives have decided to block the pharmacare bill. While they enjoy their MP taxpayer-funded health care and dental benefits, they deny them to others who need them. With the new pharmacare bill, New Democrats know that Canadians would have the access to medication that they need, not with a credit card, but with a health care card.

This would mean that close to 10 million Canadians would not have to suffer in pain and discomfort, would not have to put their health at risk and would not have to let their conditions get worse. This would no longer have to happen. The reason the Conservatives and the Liberals have let it happen in the past is profits from big pharma, as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned.

It is about trying to keep big pharma happy, not about trying to keep Canadians healthy. We need to do the work to keep Canadians healthy, to make sure we do preventative medicine and to release the burden of the expenses of contraceptives, diabetic medication and other medications as they come out. This is why we must pass the bill as quickly as possible. People are waiting on us, and the provinces are ready to come together and make life better for people.

The NDP has gotten this victory for Linda, for all women, and for people who use contraceptives and have not been able to get access to contraceptives. All those people will be able to get access very soon, and it would roll out to be even more. They would be able to keep the money in their pockets rather than in the pocket of some rich CEO.

I want to close and to double down on the fact that this is not the time to let our guard down as Canadians and as the NDP. This is not the time to let our guard down. Ideologies south of the border are coming up into Canada. There is a conversation in the House, and the Conservatives are trying to open a conversation about removing a woman's right to choose. They are using bills like this pharmacare bill around contraceptives to have that conversation. We cannot let it happen.

Also, for all Canadians, who are paying some of the highest drug prices in the world, this is not fair, and this is legislation. This is because of the Conservatives and the Liberals before, who have let big pharma take advantage of Canadians, gouge Canadians and made Canadians sicker because of their lack of compassion and their desire to control a woman's body.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing the poem by her daughter. I think it is very special.

We have come a long way, because there was a time, I can certainly remember, when talking about menstruation cycles and so on was very taboo. Here we are in the House of Commons, and we can talk about it. We need to talk about it because contraceptives are a very important priority for the pharmacare act that we are discussing tonight. I would like to hear from my colleague because she alluded to this. For people who are not insured or who may be working but are under-insured and still cannot afford the care they need, could she tell us about the stigma that can surround vulnerable groups when they are seeking proper medical care?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think about those who have episodic health conditions where they might go to work on a regular basis but have episodes. One I think about is debilitating menstrual migraines. A lot of teenagers go through this, and they do not necessarily have access to medication for that. Lots of teenagers who go to university are no longer on their parents' plans, or they do not have a plan and cannot get access to this. I know a number of young women who have come through my home, as I have three daughters. They have suffered because they could not afford access to any kind of medication for their menstrual headaches. It is unbelievable. They cannot work, and they cannot go to school. It takes them out of the workforce, and it takes them out of their school time. It is really not fair, and that is just because of the price of medication.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to put on the record that the best thing we can do for women is to give them financial autonomy and make life affordable so that they can make the choice to leave an abusive relationship. Under the Liberal-NDP government, domestic violence is up 72%.

The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association has stated that the bill “will spend billions of dollars unnecessarily on drugs for people who already have coverage.” With a cost-of-living crisis, and an inflationary deficit where people cannot afford to live, is the hon. member okay with this wasteful spending?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think that just magnifies my point. It made me think about the fact that the member here wants to control what women can have. Women can have this, but they cannot have that. We want them to go out there and work. There is a saying that says everyone should live like that, but then the Conservatives say that nobody should live like that. What I am saying is that there should not be a choice between women only having a little bit of this, but are not being given that.

In Canada, every Canadian deserves to be able to fulfill their life in work, in school and with family. Whatever their choices are, they should be able to fulfill them. Pharmacare is a fundamental piece of that, not just on contraceptive and diabetic medication, although we are starting with those two, but with all kinds of medications that keep people alive in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, and I want to share a secret: I find it difficult to sit with the NDP members. I should start by saying that, for the most part, they are very nice and I get along well with them. Our values are very similar. The problem is that they are not sitting in the right Parliament. The notion of areas of jurisdiction seems abstract to them. They cannot seem to grasp that concept.

Perhaps it is because they are not from Quebec and they do not understand that, in Quebec, the Quebec government plays a greater role in people's lives than other provincial governments. I find it difficult because we often find ourselves voting differently, even though we share the same values and agree on the fundamentals.

The question I would like to ask my colleague is this. Considering that, through the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, the matter of group purchasing to reduce drug costs has already been settled and therefore that argument does not hold water, would my colleague still be able to sleep at night if the government were to say that Quebec has the right to opt out with full financial compensation, that everyone has pharmacare and that everyone is happy?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have stood many times in the House to say how wonderful it was and is to raise children in Quebec. There is access to many programs that are not available across the rest of the country. I have spoken before about the access to swimming lessons, diving lessons and sports, which are all affordable and accessible in Quebec. Everyone should have access to those types of life-changing and family-changing opportunities. I think there is always a way for the Bloc to come and want that for everyone in Canada.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I hope I do not embarrass him over the next ten minutes.

I am not sure if my colleagues heard the Prime Minister when he said that people, and I am quoting him because I do not speak this way, could not care less about jurisdictional bickering. That is what the Prime Minister said when asked about pharmacare and dental insurance. A recent Leger poll shows the opposite, that 82% of Quebeckers hope that the federal government will respect provincial jurisdictions. What is more, 74% of Quebeckers believe that Ottawa should get approval from the Government of Quebec before implementing programs like pharmacare and dental insurance.

Let us settle this right now: People do care about jurisdictions. They care because they know full well that the federal government falls short when it comes to supporting social programs that fall outside its jurisdiction. Let us set that aside. I would like to come back to something that seems rather important: Does Quebec society need the federal government to implement social programs? Is Quebec society lagging behind the NDP and the Liberal Party in social democratic matters? I have to say no, it is not.

The best family policy in North America is in Quebec. The most generous family policy is in Quebec, with parental leave and child care, which the federal government tried to copy 20 years later. Quebec is the least expensive place in North America to get a post-secondary education. Quebec is the most generous in terms of loans and grants for post-secondary education. Quebec also has the most progressive tax system. Quebec's inequality index is 0.31, as measured by the Gini coefficient. This compares favourably with Sweden's index of 0.29. If we look at Canada, we see that Canada has an index of 0.37. This is pretty close to the United States, at 0.42, which is one of the worst in the G7.

Quebec no longer needs to demonstrate that it is a very generous society when it comes to social programs. I am going to say it again, although I am certain my colleagues have been saying it all day: We already have pharmacare in Quebec, and while it is not perfect, it does exist. Furthermore, Quebec is in the process of trying to make the program meet Quebeckers' needs more efficiently. Why are we studying a federal bill to introduce pharmacare? Is it so the Liberals can maintain their coalition with the NDP? Of course it is. My colleague from Mirabel, who is a bit of a rascal, frequently says that dental insurance was put in place because the NDP is kissing the Liberals' feet—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but there seems to be a telephone near his microphone. It is bothering the interpreters. We must ensure their health and well-being.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

I was saying that the member for Mirabel, who is a bit of a rascal will go so far as to say that the NDP wanted to bring in dental insurance because they are spending so much time kissing the Liberals' feet that they are going to get a fungal disease. I would not say something so asinine. I think it is disrespectful, but it is one way to see who might be interesting.

When it comes to pharmacare, Quebec has been well ahead of the rest of Canada since 1996. No other province has really expressed a desire to have such a program. By all accounts, with the exception of Quebec, the rest of the Canadian provinces are ambivalent about having pharmacare.

The thing that upsets me most about this is that it is a prime example. The Liberal-NDP coalition is a prime example of “Ottawa knows best”.

Take the leader of the NDP, for example. A while ago, he drafted a letter to Quebec's minister of health. While he was writing his letter to Quebec's minister of health, he decided he would also contact Québec solidaire, the NDP's sister party in Quebec City. He therefore sent the same letter to Vincent Marissal, a Québec Solidaire MNA.

In his letter, the NDP leader told them that he was writing to explain why pharmacare was necessary. Talk about blatant paternalism. As I was saying, he wanted to explain why pharmacare was necessary. In Quebec, however, we have pharmacare already, of course, and we have made more progress on social issues than they have. Unfortunately for the NDP leader, he seemed to have forgotten at the time that Quebec already had pharmacare. Had he been a little more on the ball, the NDP leader could have asked his member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to contact the Québec solidaire MNA for the provincial riding of Gouin. Both of them are in the same office and in the same building. The member for Gouin could have explained to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie the finer details of this issue and the fact that Quebec already has pharmacare.

This is a prime example of centralizing federalism, or even what I call predatory federalism, which indiscriminately interferes in provincial jurisdictions.

As Quebeckers, we know that entrusting the development of our social programs to a neighbouring nation that does not have comparable coverage is out of the question. That would make no sense. Why would we entrust the development of our social programs to a government that cannot even manage its own jurisdictions? The French word for area of jurisdiction, “champ de compétence”, includes the word “competence”. When I think of the federal government, what immediately comes to mind is Phoenix, the passport crisis, its chaotic management of the border, immigration management without any real indication of acceptable integration thresholds, and ArriveCAN. The federal government is not doing a competent job of managing its own jurisdictions.

Despite that, the feds want to tell us how to manage our social assistance coverage in Quebec. Quite frankly, it is a bit insulting. Asking Quebeckers to let Canadians manage their social programs is like asking Canadians to let Americans manage their drug coverage. It would make absolutely no sense.

I want to point out something else that is rather important: Historically, the federal government has been unreliable when it comes to social intervention. A case in point is the occasion that members know I love to talk about, when Jean Chrétien, in a moment of clarity, admitted at the G7 that he could balance his budget by cutting transfer payments without ever having to pay a political price. The provinces are the ones who paid the price at that time. Let us all remember the drastic cuts that the Liberals made to health care after 1996-97, namely, $2.5 billion ongoing in 1996 and $2.5 billion in 1997.

Thus was born and introduced the fiscal imbalance. Who paid the price? Lucien Bouchard. Everyone said that the birth of neo-liberalism in Quebec began with Lucien Bouchard and the shift to ambulatory care, but that was certainly not the case.

I will conclude by reading the motion that was passed unanimously by the National Assembly. It was tabled in 2019, when pharmacare was first being proposed.

THAT the National Assembly acknowledge the federal report recommending the establishment of a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;

THAT it reaffirm the Government of Québec's exclusive jurisdiction over health;

THAT it also reaffirm that Québec has had its own general prescription insurance plan for 20 years;

THAT it indicate to the federal government that Québec refuses to adhere to a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;

THAT it ask the Government of Québec to maintain its prescription drug insurance plan and that it demand full financial compensation from the federal government if a project for a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan is officially tabled.

All parties agreed to sign the motion, including the Quebec Liberals for the Liberal Party. For our NDP colleagues, the Québec solidaire people also signed.

That explains why we will be voting against this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc party's position on the legislation does not surprise me. For separatist reasons, the Bloc does not believe in national programs. My issue is more with the Conservative Party's opposition to the legislation.

When listening to the speeches, Conservatives seem to acknowledge that the federal government has no role to play in health care. I would like to remind my Conservative friends across the way, as well as members of the Bloc, that there is a thing called the Canada Health Act. Canada does have a responsibility. A vast majority of Canadians, in all regions of the country, recognize that the federal government has a role to play in health care, and that goes beyond just handing money over to provinces.

We have the health care system we have today because the province of Saskatchewan kind of started it, but the federal government made sure all Canadians would be able to receive it. Would the member not acknowledge that, at the very least? Is that not a good thing?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is rather remarkable when you think of it. When the parliamentary secretary was asked whether he acknowledged that the federal government had a role to play in health, he said yes. In the same sentence, he said that its role was not limited to transfers of funds. However, the federal government does not manage any hospitals or any doctors. It wants to have a role in health but has no health-related expertise.

In the beginning, the health system was a 50-50 proposition. For every dollar invested in health, 50¢ was provided by the federal government and 50¢ by the provincial government. Today, the federal government provides barely 22¢. If the federal government was serious, it would invest more in health care than it offered, and it would address the criticisms of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Conference Board, who have stated that provincial finances will eventually become unsustainable because of skyrocketing health costs.

That is your role. It is not your role to meddle in jurisdictions that are not yours.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address his comments through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a place of debate. We are looking at complex issues and trying to find solutions that would better the reality of Canadians across the country. I believe and understand that bulk buying would allow the cost of medications to go down a lot.

Is there a way the member could envision a respectful process that really looks at us buying collectively, as a country, to see those costs go down, while also honouring the provincial distinctions?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, if we want a robust system, then the simplest thing to do would be for the federal government to stay out of what is happening in Quebec, which is in negotiations with the large pharmaceutical companies.

What the federal government managed to do was to negotiate prices that are worse than what Quebec already had. That is one sign that the federal government does more harm than good when it interferes in areas that are not under its jurisdiction and puts together a poorly thought-out piecemeal program to score election points. That is what is happening here.

If the federal government wants to implement this program, then it needs to come to an agreement with the provinces first. That will help the government to avoid many pitfalls, to avoid wasting public money for absolutely nothing and to respect provincial jurisdictions, which is what we are asking it to do.

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

Madam Speaker, in his arrogant comments that I must say were also ignorant, the member for Winnipeg North said that Ottawa supposedly has powers over health care. He cited the Canada Health Act, which is a manifestation of the federal government's spending power, which Ottawa, which has more revenue than it needs for its own responsibilities, is using to give itself the right to impose conditions on Quebec in Quebec's own jurisdictions.

I would like my colleague to explain whether this is a manifestation of the fact that Ottawa takes in more revenue than it needs to deal with its own responsibilities. I would also like him to tell me, once and for all, why this justifies Quebec having a right to opt out with full financial compensation for programs under Quebec's jurisdiction.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a valid and interesting question. My colleague is absolutely right. The Séguin report demonstrated that best. Mr. Séguin, who was Quebec's finance minister, was not a sovereignist, but a federalist. In his report, he clearly demonstrated that the federal government's revenues are much higher and that its expenses are smaller, which means it is constantly putting pressure on the provinces. In the next few years, when there is a Conservative government, we are going to see transfer payments reduced, and it is the provinces that are going to be blamed. Such is the Canadian federation.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my hard-working colleague from Jonquière on his brilliant speech. My friend is always a hard act to follow.

I wanted to begin my speech by talking about the Quebec National Assembly motion, but my colleague just read it, so I will not repeat it. I will simply add a little to the speech by my colleague from Jonquière, who rightly mentioned that a unanimous motion in the Quebec National Assembly means that all the political parties adopted it. It was not just the separatists, as the parliamentary secretary opposite claims. It was adopted by all the MNAs from across Quebec, including the members of the Liberal Party—the sister party to the federal Liberals—the members of Québec Solidaire, who have a lot in common with the NDP, and of course the members of the Parti Québécois, who have more in common with us. There are no Conservatives in Quebec, because Quebeckers do not vote Conservative, which is not bad news in and of itself. It is important to understand that all the political parties in the Quebec National Assembly asked for the right to opt out with full compensation. Based on that, it seems to me that the next step is simple.

I am somewhat disappointed with the answer that my NDP colleague gave earlier. I admitted quite candidly that I find it difficult to work with the New Democrats. On the substance, our values often closely align in that we want to take care of people and we are progressive-minded. It is on the form, the “who needs to do what”, that they differ quite significantly. The New Democrats want to trample on the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec and tell them what to do. When I talk about that, I am told that members of the Bloc Québécois should want Canadians to have pharmacare. Of course we want Canadians to have pharmacare. I want to make an important clarification. The Bloc Québécois is not here to hurt the rest of Canada. We are here to defend the interests of Quebec. If we can help the rest of Canada, then all the better.

We are not opposed to that. All we are saying is that, in the fine system the government wants to put in place, we want our fair share of the money. We are glad this is happening. It is long overdue. Once again, in terms of social programs, Ottawa is way behind Quebec. Quebec has had a similar program for 18 years. We are glad the rest of Canada wants pharmacare. Go ahead. All we are asking is that Quebec be given the money it is entitled to, because we already have a plan that works well. It is not perfect, but it works well. There is not a Quebecker today who does not have pharmacare. It is important to point that out. Quebec is ahead of the curve in this area, as it is in day care and plenty of other areas. I will make a list for my colleagues a little later. The point is that we do not need the federal government for those things.

That highlights, in big fluorescent letters, the Canadian problem with the fiscal imbalance. It highlights how toxic federalism is for the Quebec nation. The federation claimed that we should form an alliance and work together for the common good by establishing jurisdictions for the provinces and Quebec in order to respect the regional disparities and priorities of each province and territory, since priorities cannot be the same in Alberta and Quebec. The people of Alberta might make different choices when it comes to pharmacare and health care. That might happen and that is fine. They can do what they want. As long as they are getting the money from the taxes that they paid, then they are entitled to their own services. They can make their own choices.

Quebeckers have already made that choice. The government seems to be acting out of contempt, ignorance or snobbery. I am not sure which term to use. I think contempt is the most appropriate. We know that Quebeckers have been doing that for a long time, but since the government is under no obligation this time, it is going to go over our heads. It is going to steamroll over us. It will absorb our system and replace it with the great big Canadian system. An exception was allowed for child care, however. I would like the parliamentary secretary to talk to me about child care. How are things going with day cares? Are Canada's day cares in trouble because Quebec got the right to opt out with full compensation? I do not think so. Things are just better in Quebec's day care centres because we have a little more money now than before. That is all we want. We are not out to hurt anyone.

That being said, the legislation sets out some fine principles. It says it will respect the principles of the Canada Health Act. This program will be publicly administered. We like that it will be publicly administered because it is different from the dental care plan, which is being entrusted to a private insurance company. When things are subcontracted to private companies, we know what happens. We recently saw what happened with ArriveCAN, and we do not want to see that again. This waste of public money was atrocious. However, even if the program is publicly administered, if a federal system is imposed on top of Quebec's system, there will inevitably be friction and inefficiency. The government says it is going to come up with a list of drugs. Quebec already does that. Are the feds going to check our list? How will this work? If the federal Minister of Health or the committee comes up with a different list, what will happen then? That is what we do not want. We do not need it.

I will address the Liberals through the Chair, since the Speaker has specified that we cannot address other members directly. We do not need the Liberals to administer pharmacare for us. We have our own system, period.

The bill states that the federal government will have to provide financial support to the provinces through agreements. Could an agreement consist of the right to opt out with full compensation? Could Ottawa simply respect the fact that Quebec already has something in place, that we do not want to change it, that our system is working fine and that we would improve it if we had more money? Would that ever be possible? Unfortunately, that does not seem possible.

As for the federal government's role in health care, it comes from spending power. My colleague from Mirabel did a good job explaining this issue. The parliamentary secretary may find me too boring, but as I see it and as Quebeckers see it, the federal government's role in health care is to transfer money. Its role is to transfer money because the federal government gets roughly half the taxes but does not have half the responsibilities. We have repeated this so many times in the House, but it does not seem like many people are listening or else people simply do not understand. When I said earlier that we should be given the right to opt out with full compensation, it was taken as me saying that I did not want Canadians in other provinces to have pharmacare. We have never said that.

The bill also indicates that a committee of experts must be established within 30 days to look into the operation and financing of national, universal, single-payer pharmacare and to figure out how it could work. This will be done for the rest of Canada, because Quebec wants the right to opt out with full compensation.

I will warn my colleagues that my speech today will be repetitive. We want the right to opt out with full compensation because the federal government has no business interfering in this area. The bill does not in any way recognize what is being done in Quebec right now. It is barely mentioned. There is no recognition of Quebec's expertise, yet in their speeches, the government members are saying that Quebeckers were forward-thinking, that they are going to take inspiration from Quebeckers and that they are going to implement a similar system everywhere. Why would they do away with our system to implement their own? That is the logic.

I am a separatist; it is in my blood. I always end up talking about the fact that the federalist parties are unable to live up to the contract they shoved down our throats in 1982. It does not seem that hard to me. We are demonstrating our good faith. Not only did we disagree and not sign, but we are working within those confines because we have had no choice since 1982. When members of the Bloc Québécois sit in the House, we rigorously respect the institutions.

Despite that, when we asked for compromises on MAID, when we moved a minor amendment that would have put Quebec another 20 or 40 years ahead of the rest of Canada, socially speaking, we were told no. When we ask for the right to opt out with full compensation, we are told no, even by people who have been telling us all day that Quebec's jurisdictions must be respected. Those people voted against this proposal. The way they vote should reflect what they say during the day.

As for the proposal about the oath to the King, it would not have cost anyone anything. We were saying that we would respect a Constitution that we did not even sign. They said that even that was far too much, and on top of that, they sang God Save The King at us.

So be it. Let them keep attacking Quebec institutions.

We are going to get ready. In a few years, we will have a good debate, and when the federal government comes to us with its red flags, the decision will be already have been made and we will be independent.

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

Madam Speaker, I am looking for clarification from the Bloc members. They seem to give the impression that prescription drugs are free in the province of Quebec. I would ask the member if he could, for clarity purposes, give an indication of whether people are charged any sort of deductible or fees.

Different provinces have different mechanisms. Some have private and some have public. I am wondering if he could expand on exactly what type of plan there is in the province of Quebec and how it applies, in particular for contraceptives.