Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, further to my earlier announcements in the House and recitation of various agreements, I would like it to be clear that the understanding arrived at between the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and myself with respect to private members' hour tomorrow morning is as follows, that it be two separate and distinct private members' hours for the purpose of dealing with two separate matters. I do not know if that was clear in my earlier comments, and I believe that reflects the consent of all honourable members.
Madam Speaker: Just for the information of the House and possible clarification, tomorrow morning's sitting dealing with private members' hour will be two explicitly one-hour sittings dealing with two explicitly private members' resolutions. Agreed? [agreed]
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): This resolution will be seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale).
"WHEREAS the National Forum on Health stated, 'Because pharmaceuticals are medically necessary and public financing is the only reasonable way to promote universal access and to control costs, we believe Canada should take the necessary steps to include drugs as part of its publicly funded health care system. We therefore call on the federal, provincial and territorial governments health services providers, private payers and consumers to chart a course leading to full public funding for medically necessary drugs.'; and
"WHEREAS the current provincial government has made many changes to Manitoba's Pharmacare program, undermining the universal accessibility of our own provincial drug plan; and
"WHEREAS while other provinces are spending more to provide drug benefits, the provincial government has cut Manitoba's Pharmacare program by more than 40%, and coverage has been eliminated for two thirds of Manitobans by basing the deductible levels on family income; and
"WHEREAS other problems with the current drug plan in Manitoba include caps on certain drugs which make them ineligible even once the deductible has been paid, changes to the Formulary which mean that some prescriptions are suddenly no longer covered and results in pharmacists not having an inventory of newly covered medications while being stuck with an inventory of medications that are no longer eligible for coverage and ongoing problems with the $5 million Drug Program Information Network; and
"WHEREAS pharmaceutical products are continuing to rise in price as a result of patent protection legislation brought in by the Federal Conservative Government and continued under the Liberal Government; and
"WHEREAS without an adequate drug plan in place, thousands of Manitobans, and perhaps millions of Canadians will be denied access to basic medication that could save their lives.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to go on record as supporting the development of a national drug care plan; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly condemn the Provincial Government for bringing in changes to the Pharmacare program which has eliminated coverage for so many Manitobans; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Provincial Government to consider reinstating funding for the Pharmacare plan in Manitoba to ensure adequate coverage for all Manitobans."
Motion presented.
Mr. Santos: Madam Speaker, from Resolution 23, we could state three basic propositions: first, that any desirable publicly funded health care system, by necessity, ought to include a medically prescribed Pharmacare drug program; second, that the funding of the national medicare program by general taxation unavoidably carries with it the idea that each essential component of universally accessible national Pharmacare program must also be publicly funded in order to control escalating costs of Pharmacare and, along with it, the escalating costs of medicare; thirdly, and lastly, that the current Manitoba provincial government's incessant and systematic nibbling of the Manitoba Pharmacare plan induced in part by the federal government's gradual cuts in the health and education transfer payments coming to the provincial governments, including the government of Manitoba, ultimately results in escalating costs of prescription drugs and the ever-increasing medical health care to Canadians, in general, and to Manitobans, in particular.
Our first proposition states that any desirable publicly funded health care system, by necessity, ought to include medically prescribed Pharmacare drug plan. By the phrase medically prescribed Pharmacare drug plan, we mean the type of drugs that we are discussing are those drugs that are generally accepted as medically necessary and have been determined to have proven effects and have general usage in the community.
For example, if after the one-year pilot project of usage of this new drug, Betaseron, as a medical drug to treat the early stages of multiple sclerosis, it may be found that such a drug is effective in halting this deadly disease attacking and paralyzing the body of human beings. These attacks are due to the inflammations that are scattered at random throughout the brain and spinal cord. Such inflammation interferes with the network of the nerves in the affected areas of the body. There are many symptoms of multiple sclerosis, including the shaking of the limbs, stiffness in walking with knees refusing to bend, losing part of the field of vision such as the inability to see towards the upper left area with either eye and, of course, paralysis which may occur in any part of the body affected.
In the treatment of multiple sclerosis, just like any other sickness, the use of drugs should, in my opinion, be the last resort, because this use of drugs although directed to the disease itself weakens the body's natural immune system. Therefore, the first line of defence of any physical body should be the person keeping up general health and his resistance to disease. If certain specific muscles are affected, physiotherapy is recommended, including massage and exercises which may prevent the general weakening and possibly paralysis. Since this disease is connected to the spinal cord, the early stages of multiple sclerosis can grow worse with emotional disturbances and with bouts of depression, in which event, resort to a psychiatrist may be helpful.
Our second proposition states that the funding of the national medicare program by general taxation unavoidably carries with it the idea of funding the medical care essential to complement the universal health care system. Therefore, this must also be publicly funded in order to control escalating costs of Pharmacare and also, of course, to control the escalating costs of medicare itself. Why? Why would public funding of Pharmacare as an essential part of medicare control escalation of costs? The answer lies in the link between the function of price regulation and the tendency of pharmaceutical companies, if they are left unregulated, to increase the costs of medication and the costs of prescription drugs.
* (1710)
If the elected and appointed officials in our government--federal, provincial levels of government--if they are the guardian of the collection of public revenues and also the stewards of the expenditure of taxpayers' money in the field of health care and of Pharmacare, if they are not beholden to the dictates of the pharmaceutical companies, who have the blessings of the medical doctors, who themselves may hold some shares of stocks in these companies, these public officials would perform their public function with integrity and would uphold the general public interest through regulatory and taxation powers of government. But if they are beholden to the interested commercial outfits, the pharmaceutical companies, of course, they cannot properly safeguard the expenditure of taxpayers' money, and they cannot control the ever-escalating cost of drugs and of medication.
Our third proposition states that the present Manitoba government has incessantly and systematically nibbled the Manitoba Pharmacare plan. This has been induced in part by the federal cuts in the transfer payments that are given to the provinces, including the government of Manitoba, which ultimately results in the escalating cost of drugs and the escalating, ever-increasing cost of medical care to Canadians, in general, and to Manitobans, in particular.
What are some of the specific acts of nibbling systematically done by the Filmon government with respect to our Pharmacare plan? It takes the form of reduction of the levels of benefits under the Pharmacare plan by systematically reducing coverage from 80 percent, then to 70 percent and then to 60 percent coverage for people under age 65. Pharmacare cost coverage is reduced if we increase the dollar amount of the deductibles from the Pharmacare plan, which is a form of insurance relating to the cost of drugs as listed in the drug formulary of the covered medications.
In 1994, Pharmacare deductible amounts were increased by the Filmon government by 10 percent for both the categories of people over age 65 and those under 65 years old. In 1995, the following year, Pharmacare deductibles were again increased by 4 percent for people over age 65 and by 14 percent for people under age 65. In the succeeding year, 1996, this Filmon government cut $20 million from the Pharmacare budget by changing the basis of coverage from the basis of age to a new basis of family income. Such a drastic change in the coverage converts the universally accessible Manitoba Pharmacare plan from the category of universally accessible program into something of a means-tested program. Let me illustrate. For a senior living alone with an income, let us say, $11,280, this senior's deductible would increase by 67 percent because of this change of the basis from age criterion to family income criterion. As for a senior living alone with an income of $15,500, such senior's deductible amount increased by a whooping 246 percent as a result of this change.
In this radically changed Pharmacare plan based on family income rather than on the age of the applicant, once the ceiling of the deductible is reached, 100 percent of the cost of the drug would be covered and would be reimbursed to the insured. But on account of the fact that the deductible amount of these drug expenses were so high, it would mean that the person would have to spend a substantial amount, a substantial portion of his annual income on drugs alone before such a person gets 100 percent coverage.
In our example of the senior living alone with an annual income of $15,500, such senior would have to spend on drugs alone over $1,350 out of his annual income just to break even and recover his costs of drugs. Clearly, such an income-based Pharmacare plan with high deductible amounts encourages people to purchase more and more drugs in order to reach the break-even point and to recover the total cost of his drugs and his medication. This means that the demands overall across the province and across Canada will increase, increasing the cost of medically prescribed drugs benefiting not the patients but the drug companies who would make enormous amounts of profits.
In 1993, the Progressive Conservative federal government under the Mulroney Tory government passed Bill C-91 which guaranteed patent protection for new brand name drugs for 20 years increasing the original rule of seven to 10 years patent, which means that generic companies are prevented from making a cheaper version of the brand name drugs for that long period of 20 years, ensuring enormous amount of profits to the brand name giant pharmaceutical companies.
In one study undertaken by Queen's University, it stated that Bill C-91 would add approximately $9 billion to the ever-increasing costs of drugs by the year 2007. Such increased costs of drugs are easily converted into profits obtained by the drug companies, of course, on the backs of seniors, on the backs of the infirm, of the sick, who are in need of prescribed medications. When the federal Liberals were in opposition, they vigorously opposed this Bill C-91, but when they became the majority government in Ottawa, they did not do anything about it. It was not until in 1998 that the Liberal government changed the regulatory penalties for smaller drug companies accused of patent infringement by reducing the 30-month regulatory penalty to only 24 months. The Chretien Liberals continued the Mulroney Tory policy of giving a 20-year patent monopoly to big brand name pharmaceutical companies.
In the fall of 1997, the National Forum on Health recommended a national prescription drug plan estimated to cost approximately $5 billion, in the form of mixed public and private pharmaceutical plans, following the U.S. model. This is a model of multiple private drug insurers and limited public plan combined. This is quite distinguishable and different from the Canadian medical model of universal, publicly funded, single-payer system with no user fee, no deductible. This feature ensures social justice, cost-containment and reliable health protections. However, unable to persuade the various provincial Health ministers to go along and unable to resist the lobby of the brand name pharmaceutical companies, the Liberal federal Health minister announced, in January 1998, that the publicly funded national Pharmacare system is not a thing to be realized in the immediate future. Hence, the need for this Pharmacare resolution. Do I have any more time, Madam Speaker? [interjection]
Failing the approval of this national health care plan, I can say that perhaps the only means left is prayer to bring healing to the sick and to the afflicted. It is only prayer of the faithful that shall save the sick, and if he had committed sin, perhaps he shall be forgiven. The effectual prayer of a righteous man availeth much, but we need action also in addition to prayer, and that is why this resolution. I ask the opposition to support this resolution. Thank you.
Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and put some comments on the record in regard to the resolution that has been put forward here today. I think that what I will probably do is just go through some of the points of the member's resolution, and then put some other numbers and some facts pertaining to the comments that he made in his presentation.
The concern that seems to be expressed, or at least to being brought forward, is the fact that health care or Pharmacare, in particular, with the changes that were made in 1996, when we introduced that, we basically had two major objectives as a government that we were trying to obtain. The first one was to provide benefits for people whose income would seriously be affected by high prescription drug costs. I think we can all relate to that statement in the sense that anything that we can do as a province or as a government or as a people to provide benefits to that certain group of people with the income that when you combine low incomes and high drug costs you certainly create some problems for them financially. I think we want to address that with a Pharmacare proposal that would suit those needs.
* (1720)
The other one that was brought forward in the discussion was: what were we trying to do? I think what was being suggested and what is being realized is that what we were trying to do was to equitably distribute available funds based on income and family size as a direct result of reduced federal funding. I think that when you look at that type of combination, when you have reduced federal funding and you run into a low income family that has a high cost prescription drug, anything and everything that can be done by governments should be to allow them to access the drugs that they need and require to have a satisfactory lifestyle that is suitable and comparable to all Manitobans.
I think that when the base Pharmacare program was introduced in April of '96 that that was the intention, and I think a lot of the numbers are starting to show that is indeed what has happened over the period of time.
I find it kind of interesting in the sense that I know a lot of the discussion when this bill was introduced was the actual cost to people based on incomes and the fact that certain groups of income earners would be losing. Their deductibles would rise, therefore making it harder for them to access the required drugs. I think just to put it on the record and to show some of the numbers, what I have done is just had a preparation of some of the expenses versus gross income and some comparisons across Canada to see how we do match up as a province.
It struck me that a single person over 65 years of age with a gross income of $10,000, if he had a drug expense of $500, his deductible would be $200. Because of the formula that has been created around this, if he had a drug expense of $1,000, his deductible would be $200. You can go right up the ladder to $5,000. Now, I am talking about single, over 65, with a gross income of $10,000. Even if he had drug expenses of $5,000, his deductible would be $200.
I think for the members opposite, just to recognize the differences in some of the numbers that are being presented, on the same principle of a single person over the age of 65 with a gross income of $10,000, in Saskatchewan, if he had a $500 drug expense, the deductible would be $391.20. If he goes up to $1,000 in drug expenses, that would increase to $564.40, and if you went up to $5,000, now, again, single over 65, gross income of $10,000 per year, had a drug expense of $5,000, in Saskatchewan that deductible would rise to $656.88.
Now, I think it is always the case, as we have listened earlier today to some of the presentations that were made by the members opposite and some of the concerns that they bring forward, that when they compare what they would do and what their party stands for and what the New Democrats across Canada stand for, it would certainly reflect, particularly in this case, that the numbers actually tell the true story and the whole story in the fact that people with the lower gross incomes, based on their drug expenses in Manitoba, are far better off than they are in our sister province in Saskatchewan. That is not to say that the governments in Saskatchewan and perhaps B.C., I would suggest, are worse off than we are or better off than we are. It is just a matter of stating the facts and putting them on the record that these are the numbers, and this is why the thinking behind the Pharmacare plan that was brought forward in April of '96. It was to assist low income people with high drug costs. I think this type of numbers certainly justify it.
I think, to add to the numbers just again for clarification so people do understand, if you are single and under 65 in the province of Manitoba and your gross income is $10,000, from $500 in drug expenses right through to $5,000, your net deductible would be $200. Previously, and I think this shows how successful and good the program is, in Manitoba, prior to this introduction of this change, your deductibles were higher. At $500, they were $342, right up to over $900. Now we have brought that deductible down to $200 across the board. Again, I would suggest, is it serving its purpose? Is it meeting what it set out to do in the first place? I would suggest that it is. It is creating a low-cost deductible for low income people in the province of Manitoba with low to high drug cost needs, and I think that certainly the numbers speak for themselves.
One of the numbers that, as I come through this, really jumped off the page at me was if you are single under 65 and your earning gross income is $45,000. In Manitoba if you are earning $45,000 gross and you have a $500 drug expense, you would pay the full amount, $500. That would be your deductible. If you moved up to $1,000 in drug expense needs, your new deductible would be $1,000. It is moved up progressively. Where it changes is at the $2,000 to the $5,000 level, the deductible would become $1,350 and remain constant from there on.
Again, just for the comparisons and for the records to show that in the province of Saskatchewan, headed by an NDP government, a government that is all caring for all people, or at least it has been suggested by the members opposite that they are the only province in Canada that seems to really care about their people, if you were single, under 65 earning a gross income of $45,000 in Saskatchewan, and you had a drug expense of $5,000, your deductible would be $2,744.50.
Again, does that make it equitable in the sense that what we are trying to do is create a fair and equal deductible for the people? I look at myself and how I compare, where I fit into these on the deductible scales. I would suggest if a person was looking at this with a completely open mind, I see no problem paying a higher deductible if I am in a higher income bracket. The benefit of the program is for the low income people with a high cost drug need. I think that is forgotten in this whole debate in this discussion in the sense that the purpose of the plan was to reduce the cost to the people that need it the most.
I have heard arguments across the floor on several of the suggestions that we have brought forward as government and defending the rights of all, and everybody should have a fair and equal deductible. I think we all agree on that principle, but I think, what is fair to the people that need it the most? Again, I look at myself, and I would think all members in this House would consider themselves to be a part of the very fortunate group of people that live in the province of Manitoba. Anything and everything that we can do, we should be doing to assist the people who are far less fortunate than us, not only in their ability to earn income but also in their needs for drug costs and drug costs related to their health that we want to try and make as affordable as possible.
The member opposite, in his resolution, has put forward three resolutions. The first one being RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) supporting the development of a national drug care plan.
I think the member opposite is probably aware that the federal government is undertaking a study and are looking at the costs and the plans that involve all the provinces and all the territories, and we are certainly participating in this particular project, and we are trying to identify the issues that are related to a national program that perhaps can benefit all Canadians as well as Manitobans. We have certainly participated in that, and I think that we will continue to participate in that plan to see where it may lead to.
* (1730)
The one thing I would like to--and I think the record should show it, is that there is not a province in Canada or in the territories that provides first-dollar universal coverage for all their residents. It is just something I think provinces in the history have come to recognize, that it is something that they just can no longer do, and I think it creates a sense of accountability to some of the people who are asked to pay deductibles based on their income, so that in my mind I think it makes all people a little more responsible in the type of system they are entering into.
The other comments that the member opposite made in regard to this was the idea of it was to reduce the amount of funding that was provided to Pharmacare and Pharmacare funding levels from the province over a period of years, and in actuality, as is the case when we talk about health care budgets in the province of Manitoba, as the needs go up and the demands go up, the province is there to answer the bell and answer the funding questions. We have seen that expressed in this year's budget with the increase of the $100 million in the health care budget, and I think that reflects very positively that we are hearing and listening to the needs of the communities in the province and responding to those needs.
The program itself has increased by $12 million over the previous fiscal year. I think if the members opposite were trying to imply that we were moving into this type of program to save money and purely save money, I certainly do not have an objection to that as long as the health care and the Pharmacare services are being provided as required, but the bottom line, again, was to provide the best affordable Pharmacare service to the people who need it the most, the low income people in the province of Manitoba with a high-cost, drug-related cost to themselves. I think we must always be aware of that. I think that it is very important that we constantly work with that in our minds as far as what we can and should be doing in the province.
Just one other number I would like to put on the record, and I think it applies to Manitoba, particularly my communities, because of the aging population which we all have in the province, but if you are a couple in Manitoba over the age of 65 earning $60,000 in Manitoba and your drug-cost needs are $5,000, you would pay a deductible of $1,710. I do not think that is unreasonable based on the amount of income people are earning. In Saskatchewan, the same couple earning $60,000 gross income with a drug-expense need of $5,000 would pay $2,998.65.
So I do not think this is really an issue that should be dealt with in the sense of which political system can do it better or bigger or better than the others, but I think what it has to do is be responsive to the needs of the people, and I think that the Pharmacare program that we have introduced in the province has addressed a lot of those issues. Will there be more? I am certain there will be. As time progresses, we will see needs and demands change, and we have to be prepared to address those, but we have introduced a formula that will address those needs as they change in the next years to come because it is funded based on income, and the income of low-end people will be protected on the deductible side.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): I am pleased to put a few remarks on the record in support of my honourable colleague's resolution, a most excellent and needed resolution, in my view.
I want to start by just pointing out what I think to most observers of the Canadian drug scene is obviously true, that all the promises that were made by the multinational drug corporations in anticipation of their gigantic rip-off via the extension of patent regulations simply have not come to pass. There was small amount of investment primarily in Quebec, in Montreal, and a very small amount in Manitoba and some amounts in between in Ontario and Alberta, but almost all of the research that was going to be claimed to be flowing as a result of this drug patent legislation, the passage of which has fuelled the rapid increase in drug costs in Canada, virtually all of this is not basic research, Madam Speaker.
Our Income Tax Act ought to be changed to reflect this reality. What is called research by these companies and claimed as research is actually the administration of drug trials in hospitals, which is a low-tech, basically a very routine process of administering the drug under tests, sometimes a placebo, and keeping the clinical records which would be kept in any case for patients. Very little original drug research is done in this country in spite of all the promises of the multinational corporations who twisted the Mulroney government's arm for drug patent legislation, which the supine Liberal government then extended recently and they basically rolled over and played dead in the face of the multinational lobby.
So I want to first point out that the benefits of the drug legislation which were promised to Canada have not accrued. Secondly, as my honourable friend I think pointed out, drug costs are the most rapidly escalating component of our medical care bills in this country. They used to comprise around 8 percent of medical costs. They are now over 14 percent of medical costs. It is the one component of our medical system which is truly and quite frighteningly out of control.
The medical benefits of drugs in some cases are very significant, but the costs are simply horrendous. These costs accrue because we have given excessive patent legislation protection to multinational corporations, so they can charge virtually whatever they choose for new drugs and they are able to maintain high prices because they have monopoly control for 20 years. The people of Manitoba, the people of Canada, are paying for that privilege.
In the 1970s, we had low-cost drugs, a competitive generic drug industry, and multinational drug company presence. We were doing very well at containing our drug costs, and we were the envy of European and American commentators who looked at the cost of drugs in our medicare system. We gave that up for promises which were never fulfilled by any of the companies involved.
To turn to the Pharmacare program which was introduced by the Schreyer government and which was a great boon to Manitobans and would be today still a great boon if it had not been so cruelly gutted by this government opposite. First of all, no designer of a program in his right mind would ever give somebody zero benefits for the first several hundred or a thousand dollars and then 100 percent benefits from there on. That simply encourages inappropriate behaviour at the margin of where the 100 percent benefit kicks in. Nobody would ever design a program that way. I cannot imagine that the government consulted with any people with competence in designing income support programs and agreed that they would put in a program in which there was a break point that the last dollar you spent cost you 100 cents and next dollar you spend cost the government 100 cents.
So obviously in the very first year this new program was put in place, the government was hosed by people who got to their benefit level and then bought all their drugs for the next year, if they could, or at least for the next period of time. So the government had a huge cost overrun which was not predicted in its projections for their savings in the first year. Contrary to what the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) says, they then projected savings on this new program of around $20 million a year. They thought they were going to save about $20 million a year on the backs of sick Manitobans, Madam Speaker, and for a year or so, their expenses did go down, but partly because of the way they designed the program and partly because of the multinationals' control of drug prices, they then began to escalate very rapidly.
So this is a government that does not know how to plan an income support program in the Pharmacare area, was hosed by many people who quite correctly saw that their benefits were being taken away and they figured out how to minimize their loss and did so. The government has not learned from that and amended the plan to take into account the fact that giving people 100 percent coverage after zero coverage is not an appropriate way to plan any Pharmacare or any other income support program for that matter. So the program is fundamentally flawed the way it is designed.
* (1740)
Finally, Madam Speaker, let me just speak about the difficulties of having large deductibles for any medical expenditure. The system is shot full of anomalies in which a drug dispensed in hospital because someone needs that drug is free; a drug dispensed to an outpatient is not; a drug dispensed in hospital but needing to be continued to be taken at home following discharge may be dispensed in sufficient quantity to be taken at home or it may not. So there are all sorts of anomalies in this kind of situation which are very, very difficult for low income people to deal with.
For example, if a low income family has a child admitted to hospital and needs an expensive drug, while the child is in hospital the family will benefit from hospital coverage and will get that drug free of cost, but if the child is discharged and needs to take a long course of high-cost antibiotics, for example, a course for several months, the family will suddenly be faced with a very large expense. If they do not incur the expense, the child will probably not get well and will wind up being readmitted at our expense; if they do incur the expense and they are like many of the families in my constituency, they may wind up not having enough money to live on, given the cost of many of these drugs, and they still will not make their deductible, because that one very large prescription will not put them over the edge. If they do not fill it, their child winds up back in hospital; if they do, they wind up with not enough money to meet their daily needs for the period of time that the child is ill.
Over and over again, Madam Speaker, I do not know whether this has happened to members opposite. They live in more affluent areas of Manitoba for the most part. But certainly in the areas in which our members live and which we represent, we run into seniors all the time who tell us that they are choosing between food and their drugs; they are choosing between their telephone and their drugs. That is immoral in a country as wealthy as ours, but it is also very bad practice because, if they do not choose drugs, they will go into the hospital, they will go into nursing homes, and we will wind up paying much more for their care than we would have if we had simply maintained the previous Pharmacare program.
Members opposite may defend the current program on the basis that 100 percent coverage is of great value to families who have very high drug bills, and that indeed is true. That was the purpose of the Life Saving Drug Program, which was brought in under our government and was continued for a while under the current administration, but with the advent of this crazily designed program that they have put in place, the Life Saving Drug Program is no longer. It does not have any effective coverage.
So the problem of having very high costs for very necessary drugs was dealt with under the old program by having the Life Saving Drug Program. Indeed, that was a good measure, but when you have a situation where you have to pay 100 percent of your drugs until you hit a limit and then you do not have to pay anything, your ability to plan for expenditures is lessened.
We all know we have to budget something for medical expenditures but, when the deductible is so high, how do you budget for $1,500 or $2,000 of potential medical expenditures as an older person or a family with some needs when you do not know whether they are going to occur or not. Do you run out and try and buy private sector insurance? Is that indeed the goal of the government, to get people to buy private sector insurance so that more of our health system is privatized and less covered through the common wealth of our citizenry?
The Pharmacare program was a fine program. It remains a better program than is in place in many American centres, but it is still not the kind of program that Manitobans deserve and which I believe they want, and that is a program that allows people to plan for their needs, that they have knowledge that their deductible will stay modest, 10 or 15 or perhaps 20 percent. That encourages good stewardship of the drugs, encourages wise use because the patient has a stake, but it does not put in place a situation where a new and serious illness suddenly costs a family something between $1,000 and $2,000 or even more thousands of dollars until they reach their deductible limit. So we have once again returned to the bad old days when illness is not only its own burden, but it adds the burden of significant financial cost.
For modest income families, perhaps the members opposite do not realize what a bill of a thousand dollars means to a modest family. It does not take much in the way of family income to have a Pharmacare deductible of $1,000. For many families who live pay cheque to pay cheque on a couple of minimum-wage jobs, that is a backbreaking expense and it is one that Manitobans ought not to have to bear.
I support and endorse my honourable colleague's motion. In particular, I would wish that the third BE IT RESOLVED would be understood by members opposite and that they would understand that the properly funded program might not in fact even cost a whole lot more than the program they put in place now, but it would ensure that more Manitobans had coverage and that more modest income families were not faced with bills of $1,000 or $1,500 or $2,000 out of the blue because a member of their family contracted a serious illness and they had to bear 100 percent of the entire deductible which, for that family I am referencing, could be as high as anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000 or $3,000 dollars. That is a backbreaking expense for many families.
I hope that members opposite will speak briefly to the resolution and that they will pass it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, I have listened to the comments with interest and I do have some difficulty with what the honourable members are offering us in terms of information from across the way.
One thing that does come to mind is that the honourable members, in the resolution,
and the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) referred to the drug companies and the people who prescribe drugs and referencing the integrity of the drug companies and the doctors prescribing such, the rip-offs that are lent to those drug companies, and then they bring in a resolution encouraging and supporting the very thing that they are criticizing. I do not understand where they are coming from.
I think there is a terrible misunderstanding on their part, and certainly it is reflected in this resolution. I am surprised the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), who has some background in terms of a more holistic approach in terms of health, would even propose such a resolution, but I respect his position and the position he has taken with this resolution. I hope that he really and sincerely believes, because he does not always--what he always says is not necessarily what he maybe believes.
The honourable member wants to enhance the Pharmacare plan, which is really what drives the engines that drive the drug companies, and those who benefit directly financially. So, Madam Speaker, I really have some difficulty with what the honourable member is proposing.
You know, as I was sitting listening to the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) speaking on this, my honourable colleagues on this side of the House say they always kid me about the things that I do. One particular instance they talked about, and some honourable members across the way will mention, the fact that the one time that I came into this Legislature after a Kidney Foundation cyclathon, and I came in with the whole right side of my face scarred in one big scab, basically what it was, and then came in four days later and it is gone. Madam Speaker, I am reminded of that very thing, and I would like to share the fact with the honourable members that I did not use one drug. There was no drug. That is not the answer. You see, what they are advocating over there is for government to take more responsibility for the health that is offered to the people in Manitoba.
* (1750)
Madam Speaker, that is totally the wrong approach because the more we help the people and support that habit, because that is really what it is, I mean, it becomes an addiction. If that is the case, then I think we have really got some real soul-searching to do as far as our health care system is concerned. I take the approach that people have to take responsibility for their own health and--[interjection] Hey, the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), he chirps from his seat again, the doctors who have to prescribe the drugs. Well, I think sometimes the doctors, when you go to the doctors, what else are they going to do because that is what they are taught? They do not understand anything else. [interjection] He talks about heart medication. You know, he has to understand that drugs in a situation with heart medication, I will reference the fact and I will give you my own experience on that.
The body--and I will simplify it to this extent--thinks that blood pressure of 100 is normal and your blood pressure goes up to 120, you get a prescription from the doctor to bring it down to 100. But the blood, or the body believes that 120 is normal, so what is the natural thing for the body to do? It is to raise the blood pressure up to 120. That is the natural thing. So who is winning on that? What you have to do, Madam Speaker, and my proposal to this is to change the context of the system, and you can only do it by nourishing that system because what happens is, as soon as you are prescribed that particular drug, then you are substituting for the system. The drug is taking the place of what the body should be doing.
The honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) nods in agreement with me. Now if that is the case, I say to the honourable member, through you, Madam Speaker, that he should withdraw this resolution because that is not--[interjection] And then they say, well, okay, are we against all pharmaceuticals? Well, I am just referencing what they are saying over there, the rip-offs that the drug companies are taking. Yes, I believe in crisis situations that we do need situations where drugs are necessary, but I think that what we have done is we have come too far with that. We rely totally on drugs to replace and to provide health for everybody and that is the wrong thing.
An Honourable Member: I think you do not know what you are talking about.
Mr. McAlpine: If the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) would think that he would have something to offer to this, I do not know where he gets his information from. I have actually spent about 14, 15 years experiencing this on my own and attending different conferences around the world. I do not have to measure up to any standard that he has to offer. I offer that for his information, and I will challenge him on any information that he wants to provide to me.
But, anyway, Madam Speaker, I think he has achieved what he wanted to achieve in taking me off my course here, because I think the whole aspect of what the honourable member is proposing in this resolution is a takeover by the drug companies of our whole pharmaceutical administration, because you can rest assured that the more money government puts in--and we have done extremely well as far as a government. I think we have been very responsible in what we have done here since 1996. We have measured those people who do not qualify or have some difficulty financially.
The honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) referenced that and has given the numbers to prove it, and they will be in Hansard for the honourable members across the way to read, and I hope that they really sincerely look at them. I am not going to reference them anymore because I think he did a tremendous job in referencing them. But the things that we have done as a government, we have put these things into place, so that those people who are at risk financially, because of something that has hit them suddenly, and are unable to deal with the drug costs that they have to face, that there is a system in place to protect them. Those are unforeseen expenses, and I think that we have addressed that.
No government can address all the issues as far as health care is concerned. I see my time is running tight here, and I would like to have some more things to offer, but I want to yield to the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) who has wanted to address this resolution. So I hope that he will be able to take it from there, and I yield to him, Madam Speaker, but thank you for the opportunity to put these few remarks on the record.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) allowing me an opportunity to at least put a few words on the record on a very important resolution. I thought that there is a lot of merit for it, I must say. It brings to issue a number of concerns that I have that have been expressed to me through constituents and other interested Manitobans. I was listening to what the member for Sturgeon Creek was saying with respect to pharmaceutical drugs, let us say, compared to nondrugs, nonpharmaceutical types of drugs, the more natural treatments, if you like, and it is always encouraging to hear that sort of a perspective on medicine or the lack of medicine in order to be able to cure some of the problems that are there.
More and more we are seeing people buy into that, that there are more natural ways as opposed to using drugs, but, Madam Speaker, for a vast majority of individuals, they recognize the importance of prescribed medications. For many of those individuals, it is a question of affordability in being able to get the drugs that they feel and that their doctors are, in fact, telling them they should be taking, being able to have the opportunity to administer those drugs to themselves, and in other cases for others to administer because in many cases they are not able to even administer the drugs themselves.
But, Madam Speaker, there are some concerns that have been raised. There have been some talked-about solutions, and one of the most important solutions that I believe is out there and has been talked about--we had the national forum on health care--is indeed having some sort of a national pharmaceutical plan, depending on which province you live in, will determine just how much of a deductible one has, will determine what type of drug might be on a listing that is, in fact, insured or not insured, and I think that there is some merit to seeing a national program that allows Canadians the opportunity to have some consistency in drugs from one coast to the other coast. I would personally like to see that happen ultimately, but along with that you have to see finances, and we are talking substantial amounts of dollars. We are talking about substantial increases that have to be injected into Pharmacare or the pharmaceuticals.
The member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) made reference to the cutbacks, as I was listening downstairs to his speech, and I would concur. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) will have 12 minutes remaining.