'Nonsense fearmongering:' Health minister slams Poilievre for 'lies' on pharmacare bill
The federal well being minister is accusing Pierre Poilievre of spreading ‘lies’ after the Conservative chief claimed to CityNews the federal government’s laws on pharmacare would ban office well being protection.
Speaking with ‘Now You Know with Rob Snow,’ Poilievre took goal on the invoice, claiming the laws will change non-public insurance coverage choices for Canadians.
“The pharmacare bill Trudeau’s brought forward would ban that and require you move over to a federal government plan, not a workplace plan, a federal government plan,” mentioned Poilievre. “I will not be supporting any plan like the one in the Liberal government’s bill that would ban you from having a workplace drug coverage.”
Bill C-64 comprises no particular measures to manage non-public medical insurance coverage choices, and the Trudeau authorities was fast to push again with federal Health Minister Mark Holland calling Poilievre’s feedback “nonsense fearmongering.”
“It’s bad enough that Pierre Poilievre wants to block women from getting access to universal contraceptives or stop diabetes patients from getting the medication they need, that’s fine if you want to vote against that. But spreading what are out and out lies and misinformation is reckless and totally irresponsible,” Holland tells CityNews.
The laws is geared toward establishing a nationwide pharmacare program, following negotiations with the provinces, starting with diabetes and contraception medicines. The spring finances tabled on April 16 units apart $ 1.5 billion over 5 years to pay for the preliminary protection.
“I will not be supporting any plan, like the one in the Liberal government’s bill, that would ban you from having a workplace drug coverage because that will make you worse off at higher cost to Canadian taxpayers,” Poilievre mentioned, repeating his claims when explaining his opposition to the invoice.
Minister Holland argues the general public program will complement non-public insurance coverage.
“You’re going to have a choice. If you want to get your universal contraceptives and use your private insurance plan, go for it, no problem,” Holland says. “But if you’re someone who doesn’t have insurance or is underinsured and you want to use a public program that we’re going to work with provinces and territories to create, you’re going to have that option.”
When requested for clarification on Poilievre’s feedback, an official in his workplace tells CityNews the references within the laws to a “single-payer” mannequin and public statements by NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh demanding common drug protection, justifies the Conservative chief’s feedback. The NDP helped negotiate the invoice.
“It’s the dishonesty, to me, that is so reprehensible,” says Holland. “If you’re against it and you don’t believe that we should cover people and you don’t believe people should get the medicine or the oral health they need, then have the courage of your convictions and be honest about what your arguments are.”
The pharmacare laws is at present at second studying within the House of Commons.
