SoVote

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

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/16/23 4:43:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not support any form of privatization as it relates to our health care system. I explained in my speech why I value it so much. If the member is correct in his assertions that various things that have led to it have occurred, then we need to do something about that, but grandstanding in the way the NDP has done in this motion is not the way to do it.

74 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/16/23 4:44:15 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Housing; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Public Safety; the hon. member for Bow River, Taxation.

52 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/16/23 4:44:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this motion. I am sorry we have hurt the feelings of the Liberals here. Here they are back to blaming the NDP. We probably took his parking spot in the morning, let his dog out of the yard and everything else he can blame on the NDP. However, we cannot be blamed by the Prime Minister, who goes out at an election and says one thing and then later on says something else, when it is time to put the mettle to the test. It is not our fault that the Prime Minister misleads the public during the voting process and then later on says something else to the premier of Ontario. That is not my fault. I do not control what the Prime Minister says, whether it is during an election or in a private meeting with Premier Ford. This is the reality. Let me read what they are upset about here. The motion says, “express disappointment that the prime minister has promoted Ontario’s for-profit health plans as 'innovation”. The phrase “express disappointment” is an outrage. That is ridiculous. We have health care. As we have noted, Tommy Douglas, Canada's greatest Canadian, fought tooth and nail, and actually reversed the move from the private sector to public health care. Where I come from, two miles across the river, I see the difference in the American system, where there are people on the street who cannot get any help. I know people who have actually lost their homes because they had to choose between health care for their children versus a home for themselves. That is a normal process that takes place in the United States. On top of that, we have lost lots of jobs in the past because we have not been the nation that has had an auto strategy or an aerospace strategy. At the same time, what has kept our footprint has been our health care system, against U.S. massive subsidies and tax reductions to some of these profiting corporations. What has taken place is that health care is not only a philosophical element that is important for our culture and the wellness of individuals and rights of a citizen here. It is actually a loss leader, in many respects, that builds innovation, protects our economy and brings in far more investment than it costs. On top of that, we have a far more productive society. That is very important to calculate because people can get the help that they need not only at a time of crisis, but also when they are only partially hurt. It is critical, especially in a global market, when we are trying to attract different types of individuals to stay in this country, that one of the feature elements we have is health care. I can say this, after hearing from people at corporations over the years who have said that they have chosen to invest in Canada. As the industry critic for the NDP for 15 of my 20 years here, I can say how many conversations there have been, over and over, where they have said that, and that is one of the reasons. Child care and dental care are also important. Instead of what the Conservatives and Liberals have been doing over the last number of generations, lowering corporate taxes and hoping for investment, those investments actually go to people, and they control it. Therefore, when we do corporate tax reductions, often those profits are taken out of the country where they are taxed by other nations. They are not invested here because we know we do not get that investment. Whereas, when our subsidies go to the people, our neighbours, our family and our coworkers, not only are we stronger as an economy, but we are also stronger in the international competition for jobs. It is crucial for manufacturing. Let us look at the type of things we have done over the years. Even right now, a thousand Canadians die at the workplace per year. I come from a place where industrial diseases through working with chemicals and toxins, and where workers losing limbs in manufacturing, are part of the normal process. Having a public health care system is crucial for innovation, maintaining jobs and putting people back in the workplace. I used to work as an employment specialist for persons with disabilities. I can say right now that it is atrocious that persons with disabilities, of those who are just looking for work, have an unemployment rate of over 50%. Having a public health care system and not a private one, for those who are destitute or who do not have the type of income needed from their job, is crucial for them to stay in the workplace and pay taxes. The creeping privatization we have disproportionately affects the working class, but on top of that, it will lose jobs for us. I cannot help what the Prime Minister does. I cannot help that he cozies up to Ford when he wants certain things. That is not the NDP's fault, but we have to call him out for what it is. That has been done in this chamber over the years, time after time, when the Liberals have said one thing and have done another. I remember that corporate tax cut reductions by many of their leaders, such as Stéphane Dion, were not fast and hard enough. There were corporate tax reductions over and over again. Paul Martin underinvested in health care, housing and all those structural features that were so important. They shift back and forth. They say one thing and are upset because they are getting called out on it. We would not be supportive if we did not make sure that the Prime Minister is accountable. This is clear in Ontario right now because, as we are fighting to restore and keep the auto industry, our primary attraction for that is health care. There is massive subsidization going on in the United States, from the state level and even from the Biden administration, and it is doing special subsidies. What we have for investment is a workforce that is not only going to be strong, trained and educated, but also healthy. That health element will ensure that we are going to continue with innovation and pay more taxes. That is why we have unions that have fought for safer workplaces. Unions are fighting for pensions for others. Unions are fighting for safer workplaces for others. I think of Local 200. I think of Local 444 with Stellantis in the Windsor assembly plant. I think of Local 195, which makes parts. They fight for other workers because they do that for the benefit of all. They know that, when they sit down at the collective bargaining table, those employers, many of them international employers who are looking to screw the workers over in some respects, are going to have the health care system they need. They will have that as a backup for their negotiations. The health care system is something crucial, not only to individuals collectively as a culture, but also our economy, because our economy contributes all the resources back just because we have our health care.

1227 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned the word “innovation”. I would caution him to be careful that the word not be used out of context, as they are doing with this motion. I am happy to discuss health care any time. It is actually one of the reasons I came to the House, but I am disappointed that it is not done in a constructive manner. I speak to health care workers on the ground and they offer solutions. Solutions do exist. They really speak to innovation. Can the member speak to actual solutions that can help us deal with what we are facing in the health care crisis today? This could be things such as digitization, data collection and technology.

123 words

Mr. Brian Masse

Feb/16/23 4:52:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am actually a PSW by training. One of the things that we can do for innovation is one of the simplest things It would be to start to recognize the credentials of foreign-based professionals, who have been in our system and are underemployed right now. That is clear. Innovation also comes about through our manufacturing. Again, that is why the unions and others support public medicare and benefit programs. They see the benefit of retaining the workforce and what it does, and they know that other parts of the economy do not have those structures. If they had it, they would do even better, be stronger and create more jobs.

114 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Feb/16/23 4:53:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep saying that health care is important to them and that the provinces and Quebec accepted the deal. The reality is that they were forced to accept one-seventh of what they were asking for. If I offered the member a choice between one-seventh of his income or nothing, and held a knife to his throat, he would likely take one-seventh of his income because he would have no choice. Under a minority government, there is a way to make health care really matter. We know that the provinces need funding. The way to make health care matter is to tell the Liberals that we will vote against their budget if it does not allocate an acceptable amount of funding for health. Since the NDP is taking a full opposition day today to talk about health care, can it commit to voting against the Liberal budget if the provinces' health care demands are not met?

162 words

Mr. Brian Masse

Feb/16/23 4:53:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have not even seen the budget. I would do like any other responsible member of Parliament, which is to see the budget in front of me and then make a decision accordingly.

35 words