SoVote

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

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Feb/16/23 4:23:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member referenced in her speech the importance of getting more health care workers into our system. In immigration, in fact, there are a number of nurses who have come to Canada, many of them as caregivers. They have written all the exams and passed them to become health care workers, for example nurses, in the system. The only thing preventing them from doing that job is their immigration status. They are only afforded a limited, employer-specific work permit, so they cannot work for anyone else, even though there are health clinics and hospitals lined up wanting to hire them. First, does the member think that the Minister of Immigration should change the system to enable these caregivers to engage in their profession, which they have been trained for? Second, does she support the call for the government to regularize workers so they can get into the system and fill the job—

157 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/16/23 4:24:25 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the hon. member the time to answer. The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

22 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Feb/16/23 4:24:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, of course we want all health care workers to be working in our system. This government is committed to that. It is up to the provinces and territories to license and ensure that they can work in the system. The system is set up. We have now reduced the Canadian work experience requirement from 24 months to 12 months so that more workers can get in and help.

70 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Feb/16/23 4:25:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but I can hear the NDP heckling. This is their day—

26 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/16/23 4:25:15 p.m.
Watch

Can we ask the hon. member to please respect the fact that another member is asking a question? The hon. member for Joliette.

23 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Feb/16/23 4:25:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the federal government just announced health transfers to the provinces. It is giving them one-sixth of what they asked for. I would like to ask my colleague if she thinks the amount announced by the federal government is enough to fix the provinces' health care systems. If so, why were Quebec and the provinces asking for so much?

61 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Feb/16/23 4:25:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my translation was not working, but I believe I understood the question sufficiently. We have made a historic announcement. We are bringing forward almost $200 billion over the next 10 years, including almost $50 billion in new spending. The point here is that it is not only about the money; it is about ensuring that we get outcomes for Canadians. I believe that the conversations and bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories will ensure that we get those results for Canadians, and I think this is what matters to all Canadians.

94 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/16/23 4:26:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, at the end of her speech, started to talk about the element of the new agreement with respect to foreign credentialing, which is a real priority in my community as well, but she was cut off toward the end. Could the member share more about how the federal government specifically will be compelling provinces and territories to do more to ensure that foreign credentials are recognized here?

80 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Feb/16/23 4:27:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague on this, as I do on many things. This is a priority for the government. Foreign credentialing, as we all know, is not the province of the federal government. I believe that during these ongoing bilateral negotiations with provinces and territories, this will be a key part of those negotiations, as we know that bringing all of those trained professionals into our health care system is essential to get the support of all the workers we can.

84 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/16/23 4:27:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are not great when it comes to climate change and the environment, but they are awesome at recycling. Of the $196 billion they announced, 75% was money that had already been announced. That is not much, considering what the provinces need. Does my colleague realize that no matter what nice things she says about health workers and professionals, that will not make a significant difference and will not really fix the system she and her party helped break?

83 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Feb/16/23 4:28:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, once again I was having trouble with translation, but I caught the last part of the question. I appreciate the fact that the member said that I have been saying lovely things. However, I would say that it is more than that. The changes that are being made through this historic amount of money that is being transferred will in fact make a huge difference in our health care system, and there are quotes from many organizations to back that up. They have been said before, and I can quote them again if the member would like—

100 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/16/23 4:28:51 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, the hon. member does not have any time left. Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

16 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Feb/16/23 4:28:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join today's discussion on the opposition motion that has been brought forward by the NDP. I would like to start by reflecting on the exchange between the member for Barrie—Innisfil and the member for Burnaby South. When the leader of the NDP was replying to the member for Barrie—Innisfil, he made a really good point, that the NDP is the fourth party in terms of seats in this House, but it is still able to do something for Canadians, still able to have an impact in this minority Parliament, and he challenged the member for Barrie—Innisfil by asking what his party has done. I completely agree with the NDP leader when he did that. NDP members have been effective at seeing some of the policies that are near and dear to the core of their values be brought into legislation and become law, such as dental care. However, as much as I respect and appreciate that, I cannot help but wonder why they would bring forward this motion. They clearly know how they can be effective, but they are completely not being effective with this motion. They know what they are doing. When we had a majority, we would see this time after time, with the NDP in particular. The Conservatives did not do this quite as much in their motions, as they would just go all out for the throat, but the NDP would do this a lot more often. They would make a motion that is really good in its intentions but then throw one or two poison pills in there, knowing that those one or two poison pills are things that this side cannot support, so that afterwards they can say, “Look, everybody, we brought forward this motion saying we need to protect our universal health care system, and the governing party, the Liberals, would not even vote for it.” They know that is exactly what they do, because they do it every time. In this case, how did they do it? They did it by inserting two sentences. One says, “the prime minister has now dramatically changed his position and has lauded as 'innovation' Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s proposed expansion of for-profit clinics”. So, if we were to vote in favour of this, we would effectively be saying that we agree that the Prime Minister said that. They know full well he did not, and I will get to that point in a second. The other sentence says that they “express disappointment that the prime minister has promoted Ontario’s for-profit health plans as 'innovation'”. Again, that never happened. What I found really interesting about the exchange from the member for Burnaby South was that afterwards, in a response to one of my questions, he actually said that the Prime Minister met with Doug Ford but they never even talked about the privatization of health care. Well, go figure. It just goes to show that the only people who made this jump from the word “innovation” and the context in which it was said to “they support privatization of health care” were the NDP members. By his own admission, the member for Burnaby South said that the Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister never talked about the privatization of health care. I happen to think that, despite the fact that the Ontario government is flirting with the idea in Ontario, and I know it is doing that, it also knows that the federal government is the party that brought health care in, with all due respect to Tommy Douglas. Kudos to the NDP for not invoking Tommy Douglas's name every four sentences in this debate today— An hon. member: Only 10 times today. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, was it only 10 times today? That is a very impressive feat by my definition. The reality of the situation is that the Premier of Ontario knows that there is no way this side of the House, the federal Liberal government that brought health care into this country, would ever allow for the privatization of health care in Ontario. So, for the NDP members to take some words that were said out of context and try to jump to the position of saying that this party is now supportive of privatizing health care is ludicrous. It goes against everything they have done in this House since the last election. The member for Burnaby South is absolutely right. They have actually done some really good things that they can take credit for, but what they are doing here today is just back to those old games they used to play before. The New Democrats introduce these motions that are really laudable, in terms of the objectives here. I do not think anybody really disagrees with anything else in here, but then they drop the one or two poison pills in there that they know we cannot support, so as soon as we do not, they are going to email-blast their friends and say that the federal Liberals will not even say they support universal health care, because the NDP put forward a motion and the Liberals did not support it. The NDP is just back to the political games I was witness to for the first four or five years in here with the NDP in opposition. I find it really disheartening, because I thought they were here to make a genuine difference, which they have been able to do by using the power they have. Unfortunately, as I have said, they clearly have not done that this time. What has been worked out with the provinces is $200 billion over the next 10 years. To the member from the Bloc who just asked my colleague a question before me, I will remind him that the provincial leaders have said that this is what they want and this is a good deal they want to be a part of. We are here to make investments in the made-in-Canada health care system we have. The Canada Health Act, from the very first lines within it, is to ensure all reasonable access to insured health services on a prepaid basis without direct charges at point of service. That is what the health care system in Canada is about. I have the luxury of never even having had to contemplate the idea of going to see a doctor or going to a hospital and having to pay for it. Can members imagine, and this happens throughout the world and in the States, a young couple having a child and being so excited, but then they get home and a couple of weeks later they get a bill from the hospital for $25,000 or $30,000 to deliver a child? It is a foreign concept to me, because I have had the luxury of the benefit of this system that the Liberal Party brought into place in a minority government, with the assistance of Tommy Douglas and the former NDP before that. I have had the luxury of that, and I value that. I think it is a really big stretch to think that anybody on this side of the House would actually support the privatization of health care. We have heard NDP members get up and say this on a number of occasions. I heard the member for Burnaby South say it and I have heard other members say it. They have specifically said to members on this side that we have the opportunity to stand up and that now is our time to have our voices heard to protect people and make sure the privatization never occurs by voting for this, but at the same time they know what they did when they wrote this. They put a couple of poison pills in here that made it impossible for us to vote for it. Earlier, I said to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the House leader for the NDP, that I am willing to support this motion and asked if he would be open to removing those two clauses, which really contribute nothing to the objective of the motion. They do not contribute anything to it. I asked if he would be willing to remove those so that I could vote in favour of it, and I am sure they would get a lot more people on this side voting in favour of it. He said no. It just goes to show that unfortunately the New Democrats are using this as an opportunity to play politics. They did such a good job at standing up for Canadians and delivering for Canadians on a few key issues they believed in during this minority Parliament, and I am just becoming jaded by having to witness what is happening now with that relationship and with their commitment to Canadians.

1512 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Feb/16/23 4:38:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be so happy to intone the name of the father of medicare and the system, Tommy Douglas. I just want to remind the member that it was passed by the Liberal government because that human being was sitting in this House and had demonstrated what it meant in Saskatchewan, and that is the only reason that we have this amazing system in this country today. I appreciate the member's hurt feelings. I understand these are sensitive issues that make us all concerned, but right now we are seeing privatization creep into this system. We have shown that in private systems, often the cost to the patient is double what it would be in our medicare system. When we start down that path, what it means is that more and more people who have resources would be going to the private system, and all the staff would be following that. People in Canada, who have relied on it and who voted in this country that Tommy Douglas was the greatest Canadian ever for the system, will see it deplete. The NDP is standing in this House today saying there should be a line. We are crossing that line, and we had better stop it. When will the Liberals take responsibility for that creep?

217 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/16/23 4:40:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, then they should bring forward that motion. Why not bring forward a motion that is very direct and simple and says, “We stand for universal health care. We do not support the privatization of health care”, full stop? They did not do that. Instead, they brought forward a motion that was intended to wedge Liberals and NDP. They brought forward a motion that they knew we would not support because they put two little poison pills into it. This is where we are. I love the grandstanding that we just saw there, but the reality is that, if that member was as genuine as she claims, she would have brought forward something much more simple and direct.

121 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Feb/16/23 4:40:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. What does he think about the assault on Quebec's jurisdictions that the NDP motion is proposing today?

33 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/16/23 4:41:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I know is that the Prime Minister went and met with the provinces and offered a deal. The provinces took their time to think about it and then came back and said they were supportive of it, including Quebec. Another member of the Bloc asked a question earlier. He said that this was not the amount that Quebec was asking for originally and asked how we felt about that. I would remind that member that the premier of Quebec said he was happy with this deal and that he endorsed this deal. Nothing is ever good enough for the Bloc. I think that is very clear to most members in the House.

115 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/16/23 4:41:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if this has been read out yet today in the debate on this motion, so I thought I would share it. These are the words of the PM: I recognize we’re in a moment of crisis right now, but we need to build a stronger system for the future.... And that’s where my focus is, I’m not going to comment on what Doug’s trying to do on this one. And we’re supposed to say a certain amount of innovation should be good as long as they’re abiding by the Canada Health Act. This puts me in a difficult position reading the words of the motion as well, a motion I fully agree with. The words of the motion are that he “dramatically changed his position”. How would the member for Kingston and the Islands characterize this?

156 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/16/23 4:42:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if colleagues vote for this they are voting for misinformation. That is what I would say. I appreciate the member for Kitchener Centre reading out the quote. If any Canadian listened to what he just read, then read this motion, they would very quickly realize what the NDP has done here by trying to wedge an issue. The reality is that no member in the House would be against innovation as it relates to our health care. The NDP has taken a leap from that comment to assuming that the Prime Minister of Canada, a member of the Liberal Party, supports privatization. That is a massive leap, and I do not think anybody will believe it.

118 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/16/23 4:43:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he recognizes that the cuts to the health care system that were started by the Conservatives and continued by the Liberal government have created the conditions for privatization. Pretty words are nice and all, but the Liberals are responsible for continuing with the Conservative cuts to health care.

59 words