SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 162 - Feb/16/23

Feb/16/23 11:48:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with my mentor, the member for Rivière-du-Nord. I think that having a discussion about the role of private health care is a great way to distinguish between certain ideological positions. On the one hand, there are those who think of themselves as social democrats or progressives, even if the latter term is a bit overused. On the other hand, there are people who have more of a neo-liberal vision, inspired by classical liberalism, where positions are often structured around an idyllic vision of the market; it is all about the market. When we talk about the role of private health care, these divisions always come to the fore. I say this because we, in the Bloc Québécois, tend to define ourselves as progressives, as social democrats, much like NDP members do. For example, one way to try and define progressives, social democrats, is to look at some of the struggles that have taken place. I am thinking about the fight for better wealth distribution, allowing for equal opportunities, which is more structured by the state. I am thinking about the struggles that women and the labour movement face. I would even say that a progressive is someone who defends secularism. I doubt my NDP colleagues would agree. Indeed, the issue of state neutrality often comes up in discussions about progressivism. What I am getting at is that Quebec is probably one of the most progressive societies in Canada. Look at the choices that Quebec has made. Child care was put in place in 1997. Canada has just implemented it, more than 20 years later. The same can be said of parental leave and pharmacare. In my opinion, Quebec's government and society is a bit more progressive than Canada. That is Quebec's choice. I would like to make a distinction. I see what the NDP is trying to do with this motion. The Bloc Québécois will be voting against it, but when we do, members will say that the Bloc Québécois is not progressive and that it is in favour of more privatized health care. However, that is not the case. That explanation is too simplistic. I do not want to accuse my NDP colleagues of populism. We know what populism means. It often involves using overly simplistic explanations to try to describe complex realities. Health care in Canada is a complex reality. The fact that we are against this motion does not necessarily mean that we are in favour of giving the private sector a bigger place in the health care system. I want to point out that the difference between the NDP's progressiveness and the Bloc Québécois's is that the NDP's progressiveness involves a centralizing, predatory federalism. I want members to remember that. I do not want to use any bad words, but we have to call a spade a spade. It is a federalism that is always trying to infringe on provincial jurisdictions. When I take a closer look at the NDP motion, what I ultimately see is paternalism, but I will come back to that. Ottawa thinks it knows best. We, the legislators in the House here in Ottawa, are supposed to explain to the provinces how the health care system works and we are the ones who see things clearly. That is basically how the NDP motion reads to me. This motion is also pretty Ontario-centric, and I will simply point out in passing that it is yet another illustration of the fact that the NDP is rather disconnected from Quebec. Let us move on quickly to the next thing. What should my colleagues have done if they truly cared about the health care issue? They should have tackled the main problem, which is a structural one. The problem that we face today is a structural one, where health care is affected by the financial withdrawal of the federal government. Guess what? The fiscal imbalance has provided extensive documentation of this withdrawal. If my NDP colleagues were serious, they would have looked at the issue of fiscal imbalance and at the federal government's withdrawal. Here is an example. In the 1990s, in 1996-97, the federal government made ongoing cuts of $2.5 billion to provincial transfers. Lucien Bouchard was premier of Quebec at the time. He had to deal with these cuts, which completely destabilized Quebec's health care system. His critics were quick to paint him as a neo-liberal politician because he made cuts to health care. However, at the same time that he was creating a $5 child care system and implementing a family policy, he was being strangled by the federal government and forced to cut health care services to the public. That is the kind of predatory federalism that I was talking about earlier. I am coming back to the fiscal imbalance because I would simply like to provide the definition that really speaks to me. It is the one that was included in the Séguin report. It states that the provinces' spending structure is such that expenditures grow faster than the economy, while those of the federal government grow at roughly the same pace. Furthermore, when it wants to adjust its spending, the federal government can just unilaterally cut transfers to the provinces, without any political fallout. “Without any political fallout” worked for Paul Martin in the 1990s. He balanced his budget on the backs of the provinces. Who paid the political price? It was the various premiers and health ministers in Quebec, who were held responsible for the shortfall in the health care system because Ottawa choked the resources. The NDP's response to something like the fiscal imbalance is to say that funding for the provinces should come with conditions. To me, that is quintessential predatory federalism. I did not make up that term. It came from a health minister from Quebec who was a Liberal and had absolutely nothing to do with sovereignists and separatists. The fiscal imbalance has been documented in a fairly impartial manner. I am thinking in particular of the Conference Board of Canada, which has shown in many studies that if nothing is done by 2030-31, the provinces will collapse under the weight of deficits, while the federal government will be swimming in surpluses. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has also demonstrated this many times. When I look at the NDP motion, I see direct interference in provincial jurisdictions. Health is not the purview of the House of Commons. Naturally, in Quebec and other provinces, governments may take approaches that are controversial, but that is democracy. If people are not satisfied with the actions of their legislatures, they can run for a seat there. If health care is the real concern of my NDP colleagues, they can stand for election in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan or Manitoba and tackle the health care system. That certainly does not fall to the House of Commons. I want to conclude by highlighting the predatory federalism we can see in the NDP proposals. Imposing national standards on long-term care facilities is interference. Hiring health care workers is interference. Investing in mental health and preventing the use of private health care, which is the basis of their motion, is again interference. To add insult to injury, if the New Democrats had done their homework, and I am sure my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord will elaborate on this, they would have looked at the Chaoulli decision and realized that if they want to go against the provinces in the delivery of health care, they have two options. One option is to use the notwithstanding clause that they condemned last week in the debate on one of our opposition motions.

1330 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/16/23 11:58:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree on the progressive policies in Quebec. I have said many times in the House that I benefited from the very first $5-a-day child care when I lived in Quebec in 1998, but I also want to point to when I had my second child in Quebec in 2003. At that point in time, C. difficile was in the hospitals. I did not get a meal delivered to my room because there was not enough staff. I needed to rely on my spouse to ensure I was fed during the two days I was in the hospital. When we look at the long-term care outcomes and the deaths through COVID in Quebec, these are the realities about which we are talking. This is about a lack of staff, a lack of funding to have adequate staff, and reliance on the free market is no way to fix these problems. Does the Bloc agree that we need to have an all-hands-on-deck fight to ensure we have the human resources in the health care system across our country?

185 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Feb/16/23 12:00:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand the difficulties my colleague has experienced in the health care system, but the major issue is one of funding and imbalance. To fix that, the government should have listened to the provinces when they asked for an additional $28 billion to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%. That is what needed to be done, and the NDP still has an opportunity to do it. The budget will contain measures that the government proposes for health care, and the NDP just has to oppose them. We can re-establish a balance of power and force this government to invest in health care to meet the provinces' expectations, to meet the expectations of patients who are on waiting lists, and to meet the expectations of nurses, who are at the end of their rope. The NDP can still make a difference. They just need to grow a backbone and stand up to the Liberal government.

160 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/16/23 12:01:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc seems to be of the impression, and I really disagree with this, that the only role the federal government plays is to provide provinces money, nothing more, to be that ATM machine. It is like having a system in Canada where data and information is irrelevant to health care, data such as having a three-month waiting list for a hip replacement in one province and a 14-month waiting list in another. We have the Canada Health Act, which is there to ensure there is a national health care system that provides basic fundamentals in health care, the expectations that Canadians have. Some provinces might be more progressive than other provinces, but would he not agree we should be able to look at the different provinces and see those basic fundamentals that are prescribed in the Canada Health Act?

144 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Feb/16/23 12:02:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell me how he can magically find solutions, here in the House, to wait times in the health care system. How can he magically do that when his government cannot even deliver passports on time, deal with irregular border crossers who do not have work permits, and help people who spend weeks waiting for their EI payments? The Liberals should take care of the things they are responsible for and let the provinces manage health care. For the provinces to manage health care, they need the necessary resources, and the federal government is the one that has the fiscal capacity to do that. The government is shirking its responsibilities. It is as simple as that.

123 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Feb/16/23 12:02:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I say this with the greatest of respect, but there is a profound error in my colleague's comment, when he asserts over and over again that health care is a provincial responsibility in jurisdiction only. That is just incorrect. The Supreme Court of Canada said, “'Health' is not a matter which is subject to specific constitutional assignment but instead is an amorphous topic which can be addressed by valid federal or provincial legislation...”. We know there are conditions attached because the Canada Health Act establishes them. When Quebec or any other province gets money, they agree to take that money on the basis of respecting five conditions of the Canada Health Act. Is the Bloc Québécois in favour of two-tier private access to care? He says he is going to vote against our motion. Does that mean the Bloc Québécois is in favour of two-tier private care in our country, because that is what this motion is about today?

174 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Feb/16/23 12:03:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that trap was easy to see coming. I said earlier in my speech that that was what the NDP would say. It is easy. Populism involves using overly simplistic explanations to describe complex realities. They are saying that if we do not vote in favour of the NDP motion, it is because we are in favour of giving the private sector a bigger place in the health care system. We will not be voting in favour of the motion and we do not support it because it directly infringes on areas of provincial jurisdiction. That sets a precedent, and we maintain—

104 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/16/23 12:04:28 p.m.
Watch

We have to resume debate. The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

14 words

Rivi
Nord

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Feb/16/23 12:04:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I agree with my colleague from Jonquière. He is very reasonable. I would add to the list of the problems with this government the fact that it has been unable to issue paycheques properly for years. I have been a member of the House since 2015, and we have been hearing about the Phoenix pay system all this time. I was a lawyer before I became an MP, and I had business clients. If they had not been able to give their employees paycheques, they would have gone bankrupt and been taken to court. I will move on to other topics, but let us just say that this government has not proven it has the competence to manage the affairs of the provinces. I would say that there are two big problems with this NDP motion. First, it does not respect the division of powers set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. We know that health is not a federal but a provincial jurisdiction. The federal government's role, with all due respect to my colleague opposite, is to transfer money to the provinces so they can manage their health care systems. As was mentioned, the federal government has no competence in many areas, certainly including health care. The federal government does not manage any hospitals, clinics or anything else to do with health care. It is dreaming if it thinks it can impose its vision on the provinces. Second, there is the issue of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court ruled that, under the charter, the federal government cannot restrict access to private health care in the provinces. I will talk about that in more detail later. When I look at this constitutional problem, I realize that the NDP does not seem to understand that the feds have nothing to do with health. I was thinking about it this morning and thought it felt like a legend. The NDP dreams of a totalitarian federal government that controls everything and of a country where the federal government is all-powerful, like a supreme authority. That is the federal legend and the NDP's dream. Mr. Mario Simard: Is it the myth? Mr. Rhéal Fortin: Madam Speaker, the myth, the legend, that is what we are talking about today. Beyond the legend, there is a constitutional problem, because health is not a federal responsibility, but rather a provincial one. There is also a problem in relation to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects a certain number of rights. It protects privacy in section 7, among other things. This is not the first time a situation of this kind has been brought before the courts. My colleague from Jonquière talked briefly about the Supreme Court of Canada's Chaoulli decision from 2005. The chief justice, Justice McLachlin, supported by Justices Major and Bastarache, agreed with the findings of Justice Deschamps. I quote: [T]he prohibition on private health insurance violates s. 1 of the Quebec Charter and is not justifiable under s. 9.1...The prohibition also violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter and is not justifiable under s. 1...While the decision about the type of health care system Quebec should adopt falls to the legislature of that province, the resulting legislation, like all laws, must comply with the Canadian Charter. Again, it states that “the type of health care system Quebec should adopt falls to the legislature of that province”. The Supreme Court wrote that over 15 years ago, but the NDP members did not read the Supreme Court decisions, and that is okay. I know they have other things to do, like dreaming up this legend of a totalitarian Canadian government and trying to promote it. That cannot be easy, and I would not want to be in their shoes. I understand why they might be busy. However, it is still important to read the Constitution and the charter at least once, to know what we are talking about and to avoid such huge traps. The New Democrats set this trap for themselves by proposing, on the one hand, that the federal government meddle in provincial and Quebec jurisdictions and, on the other hand, that the federal government completely violate the provisions of the charter. That said, is it a fatal error? Yes, interfering in provincial jurisdictions is a fatal error. I do not think that the federal government has any business meddling in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It can try, but it will end up in court. After a few years, the Supreme Court will say, as it already has, that this cannot be done. The federal government can try if it wants. We shall see. Is the charter question fatal? No, it is not. I must concur. We could contravene the provisions of the charter and say, “Too bad for section 7, we are still going ahead with a measure that would prohibit nurses from accessing private health care.” Even if it violates the charter, it could be done. How would we go about it? It is easy. The charter contains just such a provision. It is section 33, which reads as follows: Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. The Chaoulli decision dealt with section 7. When I read the charter, I see that it can be overridden. Yes, what the NDP is proposing violates the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is a major sacrilege, clearly, but section 33 allows for the charter to be overridden. The only problem is that just this week, mere hours ago, the NDP was getting all worked up and crying foul because Quebec had the nerve to use this notwithstanding clause to protect French and secularism in Quebec. Scandalized, our Canadian federal Prime Minister said that he would go to the Supreme Court and ask it to declare that the provinces cannot use the notwithstanding clause that his father gave them many years ago when he had this legislation passed. He said that they should have to go through the courts first and so on. We argued that this did not make much sense since section 33 states, “Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature”. That is what Quebec did, that is what the federal government detests and that is what the NDP finds so outrageous and astounding. However, that is what the NDP will have to do if they want to follow their motion to its logical conclusion. Are they going to follow their motion to its logical conclusion? Perhaps. If they do, we will bring back our motion, which they defeated this week. After all, a person cannot enjoy ice cream one day, be allergic to it the next, and then enjoy it again the day after. It either works or it does not. If they want it to work, I am willing to consider it. There will still be the jurisdictional issue, which remains unresolved, but we could at least resolve the charter aspect. If they want to continue down that path, with that reasoning, we will follow their lead and allow them to apply for a charter exemption. We know that they are entirely within their rights. However, if they persist in saying that we are not allowed to do it, it is hard for me to see how they can logically say to us that they want to contravene the charter and violate the division of powers. Again, this legend exists only in the minds of my esteemed colleagues in the New Democratic Party or, should I say, the New Liberal-Democratic Party. I am not sure what to call it anymore.

1360 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Feb/16/23 12:13:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to start with the fact that, yes, it is New Democrats' dream to one day see a universally administered, universally accessible health care system in this country. If that is our dream, we are the Bloc Québécois's nightmare because this piece of legislation, this work and the funding models that need to be put in place are the kinds of things Canadians expect from coast to coast to coast. The reality is that we are living in a confederacy; our country was founded on the principle of confederacy, and that model came from indigenous nations. If the Bloc members would look at a history book, they would realize that those indigenous nations actually bound together in their confederacies to work with one another and to help one another, rather than block the health care that people in my province, people in Saskatchewan and the good people of Manitoba would otherwise benefit from. I do appreciate this member's speech, but it does not go far enough to protect Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Can the member explain what his plan is to ensure that other Canadians have the opportunities that Quebec may have?

204 words

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Feb/16/23 12:14:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I can tell my colleague is that we dream similar dreams but have different ideas about how to achieve those dreams. He dreams of a great nation from coast to coast to coast with rules that apply from coast to coast to coast to everyone who lives from coast to coast to coast. We dream of our own country, of Quebec. We know that we have one way of doing things. It is not better, but it is different from how things are done elsewhere in Canada. We dream of the alliance my colleague talked about. I have nothing against the Canadian Confederation. On the day that Quebec becomes a country, we are not going to build a fence around Quebec and tell others they must stay out and we will stay in. We want an alliance and trade relations. We want a lot of things. We are going to get along with our neighbours. However, this marriage has a problem, because we do not see things the same way. We want to make our rules, and we want Canada to make its rules. Then we will see what we can agree on. I will always be happy to shake hands with my colleague and work with him to make life better for everyone in the great and beautiful country of Canada and in Quebec.

228 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

Feb/16/23 12:15:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, which reflects his legal background. Surely my colleague would agree that more and more Canadians, especially young people, are suffering from mental health issues. That is why it is important to invest in mental health and in integrated services for youth. By negotiating their bilateral agreements, the provinces will have the flexibility to decide to invest more money in mental health. Is that not a good thing?

77 words

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Feb/16/23 12:16:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I know this member as a great parliamentarian and a very competent legal expert. That said, obviously we are not against mental health care. I have never met anyone in Quebec who was against apple pie. Everyone likes it. People with mental health issues need to be taken care of. I hope the rest of Canada has the same concerns. In fact, I have no doubt that they feel the same way. The issue is not whether we want to take care of people with mental health issues. The issue is who is going to take care of them. Pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867, could each province not have its own provisions to address its own specific concerns, which differ from one province to the next? After all, that is a fact of life.

144 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Feb/16/23 12:17:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are learning about Veterans Affairs' mental health rehabilitation services treatments being outsourced to a company owned by Loblaws. My good colleague from North Island—Powell River has been calling on the government to deliver that through Canada's health care system, not privatize it. Meanwhile veterans, people who have put their lives on the line, are not getting the services and treatment they need and deserve. Does the member think that this privatization of veterans' services should be included in the health care system for Canada and Quebeckers rather than outsourced, where profits are actually flowing to investors while veterans wait for services? It is absolutely absurd. It is unconscionable that the government is doing this.

120 words

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Feb/16/23 12:18:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have a great deal of respect for him as well. I know that there are many health care issues in British Columbia. My heart goes out to the people in that province. That said, I agree with the premise of the motion, which is to prohibit private health care and try to improve public health care. Yesterday, Quebec introduced Bill 10, a bill to restrict the use of staffing agencies and self-employed workers in the health and social services sector. Last spring, in April 2022, it adopted a plan to implement necessary changes in health care. We are concerned about this issue, and we are working on it. I am convinced the same thing is happening in British Columbia, Ontario and elsewhere in Canada. We just have to do things our way, and the federal government must stop interfering in the provinces' management of health care—

160 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/16/23 12:19:19 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.

8 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Feb/16/23 12:19:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about health care, something that Canadians value. Our health care system is the very backbone of our social safety net, no matter who we are, how much we make, where we live or in what circumstances we may find ourselves. It is the core value that Canadians right across the country praise, and it is at risk today. There is an insidious and nefarious project under way in Canada that would seek to take away that very protection. It has already begun In my home province of Alberta. The premier of Alberta is utilizing existing public funds to funnel into the private health care system, funds that would otherwise be used for public care. This cannibalizes our existing public health care system. It is a fallacy, a myth that the private health care system can make things better. It is no secret to the many Canadians who had to put up this fight before, including the New Democratic Party, which has always been steadfast in the defence of our public health care system, that the provinces would seek to defund and take away the supports of our public health care system. This would ensure that the public would begin to see that deterioration, which would build public support for private health care systems. That is what is happening right now. Our public health care system is falling victim to a classic privatization trap, whether with respect to education or health care, that would seek to destroy our social safety net. I look at my home province and the real people who have been saved through public health care. The fight began and grew on the Prairies. The intent of the Canada Health Act was to ensure that no matter who we were, whether it was the neighbours we farmed with, or the post office person, or the teacher or the person constructing our roads, and regardless of how the economy may have hurt us, we would have that basic level of humanity. It is not the job of the government to look solely at the GDP of the country. It is important it ensures that the people who develop the means and the surpluses to make so much possible in our country have control and benefit from those surpluses. Part of that is ensuring that the basic need of health care is looked after. Imagine our country seeking to seize on Danielle Smith's project to give everyone $375 in an account to privatize the health care system in my province. If that were implemented that right across the country, millions of our most vulnerable people would be left behind. As evidence of this, Premier Danielle Smith published a paper at the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, where she suggested creating annual health co-pay fees of up to $1,000 annually based on income. She has stated that once people get used to the concept of paying out of pocket for more things themselves then “we can change the conversation on health care.” It is shameful that she would want to shackle the most vulnerable, who need health care the most, to a limit of $1,000. We know that it costs at least $3,000 for one night in the hospital. Who does she want to toss out onto the street? Who does she want to ensure does not get that care? On top of all of that, the condition of our hospitals today is truly deplorable. Before we get to the point of proposing a solution like Danielle Smith's, we have to break the system first. We have to break public health care. That starts with attacking our public health care workers and our care economy. The brave men, women and non-binary folks who work in our health care system today are the same people who helped us through one of our country's worst nightmares, the global pandemic, which would have left millions of Canadians behind if we did not have a public health care system. Even though health care is massively underfunded, and the conditions these workers were placed in, they stepped up. The House praised them. The Conservatives, the Bloc, the Liberals called them heroes. When I talk to health care workers in my province today, they feel like zeroes, because that is what they are getting at the bargaining table and in their contracts. When we value our health care professionals and those who work in the profession, we value our health care system. These people are not looking for profits. They are looking for the tools to help their neighbours, their family members, the people they grew up with and the provinces they love. However, the conditions they are working in are forcing them into a narrow corner. They have to make a decision to either leave the health care system altogether or enter a growing private sector that would seek to abuse them, that would seek to take away their rights and that would seek to take profit from those who are sick. It is a shame. Alberta can be a prosperous, beautiful, strong and resilient place so long as we ensure that the principles we have agreed to in our provincial health bill, which is our public health care system, are truly adhered to and valued. Part of that is looking back at that history and at those who experienced the health care system before it became a socialized system. I talked to a retired nurse in my riding. Just last weekend said asked me to please stop the privatization of health care. She knew exactly what that felt like because she had lived through it before. In Alberta and other provinces, before our national health care program was built, and is still being built and defended today, she had to go through the onerous process of having to ask someone to insure her husband's life. When she could not afford to make those payments, the insurer said “too bad, so sad”. Her husband needed insulin and medical attention. Her husband worked on a farm his whole life and was a hard worker, and there are realities to that kind of labour. When we do not provide that social safety net for those who rely on it most, we leave them behind and it hurts our economy. We need to take a stand against U.S.-style for-profit health care, and that is part of the problem. We have megacorporations that would love to dine out on the public dollar, that would love to continue to make a killing off people who need that support. Our job in this place is to ensure that Canadians have the tools and the social safety net to succeed when they fall down, because we are all human, so they can get back up. Canadians are fighting for that today. That is the progress New Democrats are fighting for today, a truly universally accepted public health care system that can withstand the labour conditions we put on individuals who give themselves to our country and who find themselves lesser for it; and a government that is not willing to ensure they have that health care. It is for those teachers, so they can ensure that no matter what happens to them, especially throughout COVID, they can continue to do the work of standing on the front lines. The working class of our country are being divided and they are being attacked, and it is being done so we do not look at the real problem. Those corporations that would seek to profit, and the politicians they pay for, ignore this issue. They want us to ignore the fact that our public health care system is under attack. They want us to ignore the fact that for-profit surgeries are already taking place in my home province of Alberta. The Liberal government needs to enforce the Canada Health Act. It is written clearly. It needs to do that and ensure that people like Danielle Smith cannot continue to finance the private health care system like she is today. I welcome the Liberals to Alberta to take a look at some of the private health care systems, because they obviously do not believe it. They should talk to the people who need this service. They should talk to them about how much it costs to get a hip replacement. We are here to defend public health care, and we will continue to do that.

1435 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

Feb/16/23 12:29:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for taking such a firm stand in this place for publicly funded, universally available and equitably delivered health care in our country. It is so important that we continue to stand up for it because he is right. There are Conservatives in the House and across the country who would strive to privatize our health care further. However, our plan is compliant with the Canada Health Act. It ensures that provinces and territories abide by the Canada Health Act. The member said precisely that our government should enforce it, and I have a few small examples. In Ontario in 2021, a deduction was taken from Ontario's federal health transfer for charges that were privatized in nature. The same is true for New Brunswick as well as in the member's home province of Alberta. These deductions are the enforcement mechanism that the federal government to enforce the priority. This government has repeatedly stated that our health care remains public and universal. If the member has any other recommendations, I am here to listen.

181 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

Feb/16/23 12:30:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe the government can enforce the Canada Health Act in a way that is consistent with the goal of ensuring we have equity right across the country. The problem I have is the fact that we have an existing public health care system that, if funded properly, could work really well. However, this idea that we could break the existing public health care system and then find innovative “solutions” amounts to privatization. In my province of Alberta, it is already happening. Therefore, something has gone wrong. Either the government is not enforcing the Canada Health Act or it is ignoring the reality that, in Alberta, private health care is happening. People are paying money for their very basic needs in order to survive.

128 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/16/23 12:31:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the passion with which he speaks. Once again, I find myself in a situation where I agree almost 100% with my colleague. However, he is not in the right parliament. Today, his political party is proposing a false solution: to support the government which is underfunding provincial health care, but prohibit the bad provinces from using private health care to solve their problems. The Bloc Québécois does not support using the private sector for health care, either. We are asking the NDP to end this fake NDP-Liberal coalition and stop voting for a government that slashes funding. My colleague talked about history earlier. I would like to educate him on two points: First, Canada is mistakenly called a confederation; it is a federation where an overly powerful central government imposes its will on the provinces. It wants to keep doing that and, in a few weeks, there will be a vote on a budget full of funding cuts, when the initial agreement was 50% of health care costs. I would like my colleague to tell me how he can sleep at night.

195 words