SoVote

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

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/16/23 4:55:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am curious to hear the member for Windsor West's thoughts on mental health in particular. Of the new funds, we have seen $25 billion over 10 years committed. Mental health is now one of four items on that list, as opposed to a previous commitment of a dedicated $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer. Can he talk about how important this would be for folks in Windsor West?

73 words

Mr. Brian Masse

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question, because I was talking more about the economics of things and did not actually put that into the equation, which is really important. Mental health is also one of those things we must invest in, and having a dedicated strategy is important because people will be back to work a lot quicker and people with mental health issues will be able to go to work. We know that has a huge impact on the economy and productivity. Again, it is an investment to make sure people are productive, which is key. When we lose those supports, we also lose our friends and family and other people at work.

115 words

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

Feb/16/23 4:57:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be here to talk about this bill. I appreciate that it is a difficult subject. As a New Democrat, I am incredibly proud of the fact that in 2004, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for Tommy Douglas as the greatest Canadian because he was the father of medicare. When we think about medicare, it is right in our blood. We believe in it foundationally, and it is something we all want to see continue to grow and progress in this country. However, we know the reality is that it is in crisis. I know this very well. I know this because of the realities in my riding. In my riding, there are currently two hospitals that have no emergency room at night. They shut down. One of those communities is on Corman Island. It is an island, so if something happens to someone at a time when the hospital is closed, they have to find a way off of the island to get help. I think of Port Hardy, which was very much in the news. One time, someone who was going to the emergency room at the hospital with a very serious issue arrived to find it closed. He collapsed and an ambulance had to drive him over 30 minutes to the nearest hospital. He was lucky because he was not on an island. He was lucky because when he got there, the hospital was not closed that day. The reality is that during a period of time, we had sudden emergency room closures. Often there were Facebook posts just to let people in the community know their hospital was not open for emergencies that evening. This is devastating. It is devastating to communities. I have had so many constituents contact me to let me know how afraid they are. The hospitals are having such a hard time attracting doctors, staff and nurses because they are burning out. It is huge. We have to continue to talk about this. When it happens, especially for rural and remote communities that have a very unique experience in this country, people lose emergency access, and they often have to travel far to get any kind of specialist appointment. Now when hospitals are looking at strategies to attract and retain people, it is harder for them. Some are trying to rebuild their communities and economies, but they cannot tell people that if they come to the community to work and live, there is going to be an emergency room open if something happens to them. Recently, the B.C. NDP government stepped up with $30 million to help. Part of that help meant that two hospitals had to close their emergency services at night. However, what was different is it was not happening all the time. Now they have some resources to start an attraction and retention strategy to get more of the health care providers they desperately need in that region. The reality is that in Port Hardy, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. there are emergency services, but from 5 p.m. to 7 a.m. there are none. On Corman Island, between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. there are emergency services, but after 7 p.m. there are none. Let us remember that people have to take a ferry to get help or take a helicopter off the island. I am here and will support this bill because my constituents are pleading for help, and I do not believe the government is standing up to support them. We need the resources flowing. We know something has fundamentally changed in this country, and medicare is worth fighting for. We need to see that this crisis is happening and that privatization is growing in this country. Why should we be afraid of privatization? Why should we be concerned when the Prime Minister, during an election, made fun of the Conservative leader for saying that privatization is innovation? The Prime Minister said it was wrong, but a little while later he told Doug Ford that it was innovation and good for him. That is the discrepancy here. I really hope members in this House listen to that, because it is a clear discrepancy. All Canadians need to be aware of that. One of my riding's biggest public health advocates is Lois Jarvis. She is relentless. This woman fights every day for public health care, and I appreciate and respect her so much. When the communities of Campbell River and Comox Valley were getting hospitals built, she fought like hell to make sure they would have free parking. Do members know why she fought for free parking? It is because those two hospitals serve communities from all around, and people have to come a far distance to get health care. She did not want them to drive for hours, take ferries and then have to pay for parking on top of it, so she fought for it. She fought for public health care, and I will as well. We know for a fact that private clinics across Canada are advertising that procedures can be done there so much faster and would cost $20,000 to $28,000. We also know that medicare in Canada does the same service for just over $12,000. Privatization is always about making profit; it is not about helping people. That is why the NDP will get up every single day and fight for this system. Tommy Douglas built it. We all know what he went through to make it happen. It is shameful for the Liberals to take credit for somebody's hard work and inspiration in this country, as if finally the federal government listened and is making sure it happens for every Canadian. I will stand up for this every day, and I will say that if it does not pass the Lois Jarvis smell test, then I will not have it. Right now, what is happening in this country does not pass her smell test. She knows that privatization is creeping and creeping. Do members know what that means? It means indigenous communities will have even worse health outcomes. It means people who are economically marginalized will be more and more ridden with disease. Our system will fail them. It is already failing too many Canadians. I will stand up in this House to fight for health care. I certainly hope that everybody in this House has the bravery to do the same.

1088 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Feb/16/23 5:03:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also come from a province where we are seeing ERs close. People are dying while waiting to receive care. It is absolutely at crisis levels. Do members know what is not helping them? It is the games being played in this House, which is exactly what this motion demonstrates. I am going to allow the member to cut through a lot of the unhelpful pieces of it and maybe speak to the piece about “[enforcing] the Canada Health Act and immediately [moving] to close loopholes that allow for the growth of two-tier health care”. I would like to hear more about that specifically.

109 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Feb/16/23 5:04:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am really disappointed that the member does not see the reality happening on the ground and the fact that the federal contribution to health care used to be substantively more. This is with every different government. It goes down and down. This is about saying that across this country we deserve health care for everyone. It means the federal government has to take that up. I will tell the member what is happening with loopholes. Private companies in this country are inviting people from one province to another to get help at a much higher rate. When we look at this administratively, in the U.S. over 30% of costs are administrative. When it comes to medicare, less than 2% of costs are administrative. This makes sense. It is the best for the economy. It is the best for the community. It is the best for health care in Canada. I hope the member will fight for that just as strongly as I am willing to.

169 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Feb/16/23 5:05:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as we near the end of this debate, a couple of things have been made clear to me. One of them is that I have not once heard the Liberals stand up in this House and say they agree with the New Democrats that additional federal public dollars must go to public health care. They claim to support public health care. They claim to support the Canada Health Act. However, they will not say those words. The result is that the extra $46 billion that will be delivered to the provinces will be allowed to be diverted to private, for-profit care. The problem is that this care is more expensive, it is more inequitable and it will lead to a drain on the public system. That is the crux of the policy discussion we are having here today. It is not that it does or does not violate the Canada Health Act. It is that it is bad public policy that would result in longer wait lines for Canadians in the public system and additional pressures on already burnt out working groups in the health care sector of this country. Has my hon. colleague heard anything from the Liberals today that would tell her they understand the gravity of the situation? What needs to be done to protect public health care?

224 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Feb/16/23 5:06:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have not. I think it is absolutely appalling that in all of this work, there was not a clear and decisive statement by the government saying that any money given to the provinces and territories will not go toward privatized health care. That is what defending health care looks like, and the Liberals refuse to do it.

60 words

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

Feb/16/23 5:06:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, why would one have to make that statement when it is written in the law? It is literally in the first part of the legislation. It says that the privatization of health care is not an option. It has to be available to the public in a prepaid fashion, and no point-of-service payments have to be made. Why would it be necessary to tell people something that is already the law?

75 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Feb/16/23 5:07:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I will talk through you. I will also let the House know that, unlike the member, I will not be saying anything terrible about him, as he said earlier about me. That is fine. I am a pretty genuine person, in my opinion. However, what we are seeing again and again through this system is increased privatization. We have outlined in many speeches in this House all the different ways that Canadians are being charged for health care. It is happening. It is very nice that there is a loophole. There are several loopholes, and the Liberals need to fix those loopholes because the creep is happening. I do not know what else to say. It is a fair fact. We have reported it repeatedly and it has been in the media. I would encourage the member to look at that and do his own research. It is not my job to educate the member. Hopefully he can do it himself.

166 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Feb/16/23 5:08:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to today's NDP motion about privatization and the health system. It would accomplish two things. One is the substantive denunciation of privatization and the false narrative that somehow this is an innovative solution to the problems of our health system at the moment, or at any time for that matter. It is also a motion about accountability and holding the Prime Minister accountable for statements that he has made. He ran in 2021 denouncing the then Conservative leader who was talking about privatization as innovation and then recently lauded the Conservative premier of Ontario for privatization and called it innovative himself. If we want to see the right kinds of outcomes from the government, accountability has to be part of that. It is natural and good in this place to hold people to account for the things they have said, particularly when Liberals contradict themselves. That is especially true in the case of the Prime Minister, who ought to be providing leadership in this moment on the health file. In my opinion, he cannot do that adequately unless he is a champion for public delivery of services over privatization. That is the accountability bit and why this is an important part of the motion. On the substantive issue, one of the main reasons why it is really important not to encourage further privatization within the system is because it is not a solution to the problems. The overwhelming problem in our system right now is the lack of health human resources. That is an issue of training and education, frankly. It is about trying to mobilize Canadians who either do not have a career yet and are thinking about what career they are going to move into or contemplating a change in career and figuring out how we train them in order to do all of the various jobs within the health system, whether it is being a doctor, a nurse, a personal support worker, a health care aide, an RPN or an LPN. The point is that we need to get more people working in our health care system. Setting up private clinics to compete with the public system for the people who are trained and are able to do those jobs is not going to solve the problem. It is just going to shift people around between different places within a system that is already starved for people. If private clinics somehow had a magic sack full of health care workers that they could just draw out like rabbits out of a hat, that would be one thing. That would be great. That would mean more people in the system and we could talk about terms and conditions, but we all know that is false. We know that the people who are ultimately going to pay for the education and training of those people who are going to work in the private clinics is the public. Therefore, the public should have a right to avail themselves of the services of those very same people in the same institutions, not an institution for people who can pay for quick access and then a public system that is starved for talent and people due to private clinics paying more because they are accepting patients who can afford to pay more. That is the dynamic that is set up as we allow for more and more private delivery of services within the Canadian system, and that is why we are here to denounce that today. It is not true that privatization is innovation. That word is often abused when we talk about health care. I think of the Conservative government in Manitoba under Brian Pallister and then Heather Stefanson, who talked about innovation. What did that mean for people in Elmwood—Transcona and northeast Winnipeg more generally? That meant that the Concordia emergency room got closed. That meant that the Transcona community IV program was shut down. That meant that the satellite cancer care clinic in northeast Winnipeg, run out of Concordia Hospital, was closed. That is what they call innovation. It is not a coincidence that they call that innovation and they also call privatization innovation, because it is closing down services like that and refusing to do the hard work of setting up training programs to have an adequate number of health care professionals to deliver the services that people need. The Conservative governments then come in and say that we now need to privatize because it is not working. First, they close it down, then they starve our educational institutions of an adequate number of seats to train the folks that we need. Then they say it is broken and the only way to fix it is to call our buddies who are doing business in American health care and invite them across the border to come do it here. That may be innovation from their point of view, from a profit-making point of view, but it sure as hell is not policy innovation when it comes to serving people well in their own communities in the way that Canadians have come to rightly expect, which is to not be greeted at the emergency room door and asked to see their wallets, but to be asked to see their health cards. That is the way it should be. If we are going to preserve that in Canada, we need to focus the conversation at government levels. That includes the federal government in its role as a funder and the provinces in their roles as deliverers of health services. We need to be talking about how we meet the needs within the system. The biggest, most pressing need right now is for more people who know how to do jobs to keep ERs open and in order to have access to primary care. We know that is the best investment because it allows people to take a preventative approach to health care and not be treated at the ER, but to be treated in a community clinic where it is cheaper for the system overall and ultimately better for people's health. That is why the motion is important. It is important because it calls out the false narrative of innovation through privatization that we hear about far too often without any evidence that it actually works. It is also important because it is about holding the Prime Minister to account for the promise he made to Canadians in the 2021 election. Unfortunately, it seems he is going back on it. Canadians will remember when the Prime Minister made a clear electoral commitment to electoral reform in 2015. He turned his back on that. We are not going to let him do it on health care. That is what today's debate is all about.

1149 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/16/23 5:15:05 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

73 words

Mr. Don Davies

Feb/16/23 5:17:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote be held in this matter.

13 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/16/23 5:17:09 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, March 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

27 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/16/23 5:17:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so we can start Private Members' Business.

29 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/16/23 5:17:34 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

35 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/16/23 5:17:56 p.m.
Watch

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

31 words

Hon. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.)

Feb/16/23 5:18:29 p.m.
Watch

moved that the bill be concurred in.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/16/23 5:18:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-232

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion to be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. An hon. member: On division.

45 words

All Topics

Hon. David McGuinty

Feb/16/23 5:19:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-232

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, good evening to you and to colleagues in the House, and to those who may be watching these proceedings. I am delighted to speak at third reading on my private member's bill, Bill C-232, which would designate every April as Arab heritage month. I would like to thank members from all sides of the House for their support thus far. I would like to note that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage reported the bill back with no amendments. Bill C-232 recognizes and celebrates the historic mark that Arab Canadians have made and continue to make in building our great Canadian society. I have had the privilege to spend the past three days in senior briefings at the United Nations in New York on water, sustainability, refugees and other global security issues. While there, it struck me that I felt, as a Canadian, very much at home. I felt at home because I think one leaves the United Nations with an understanding that we are very much all in this together, and the miracle of the planet that we live on needs us to come together. My bill addresses some of that, as I think listeners will conclude in just a few moments. In the past, I have had the privilege of serving as a deputy minister executive in the Privy Council Office for 10 years. I would like to take a moment to give those watching tonight a bit of a snapshot of what goes on in the work of an MP and the nature of the variety of work that is undertaken in my constituency, and why that has led me to bring this bill forward. I have the honour of representing Ottawa South, where we have the second-largest Arabic-speaking population of the 338 electoral districts in Canada. In fact, we have residents from over 100 countries of origin who speak over 80 languages. That is not only an opportunity, but it is in fact a special responsibility to show the world that we can all live together, work together and learn from each other, a theme I will return to in a moment. There are 43 schools in my district. Before the pandemic, I made it a point to visit them and, where possible, have the students visit me here on Parliament Hill. I would tell the kids that they were rich. When they would look at each other in bewilderment and fumble through their pockets looking for change and for coins and cash, I would explain that I did not mean rich in terms of money, but in terms of culture, language, religion, dance, dress and food types, trying to instill in them at an early age an appreciation of the fullness of their world. Every week, Canada receives representatives from other countries and they ask all of us in this House how we do it in Canada. They ask how we are managing to build a society that is inclusive, where there is room for all. Of course, it is a perfectly imperfect society and a work in progress, but they ask us each and every day when they visit. I tell them that I am out of patience with the word “tolerance”. I am convinced we have moved on. I do not think it is about tolerating someone anymore; it is about celebrating everyone. It is not only the right thing to do; it is the inclusive thing to do. It is not only the inclusive thing to do; it turns out it is the economic thing to do. Only a foolish country would not avail itself of all the talent within its borders. Only a foolish country would not deploy all of that talent. We need to find and nurture as much talent as we can. This is Canada's privileged opportunity. This is Canada's undeniable responsibility, along with our special responsibility to show the rest of the world that we are a diverse and inclusive place and that we are all in this together, building a society that is the envy of the world. My mother raised 10 children, and along the way she worked as a nurse for 50 years. She also helped to build two businesses. She was an extraordinary role model. She was an extraordinary person. She used to tell her 10 children that we had a choice to make: If we pulled apart, we would feel like we were five, but if we pulled together, we would feel like we were 20. To pull together, she would say, means leaving no one behind; it means ensuring opportunity for all. Finding and nurturing the talent in everyone around us and deploying it to the benefit of a country and to the benefit of each other is, in fact, in our enlightened self-interest. Let me draw from some recent professional experience to share some insights on questions of diversity and inclusion, which also underpin my bill. It is illustrative. I have the honour of being the founding chair of Canada's National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. In March 2020, we released a groundbreaking report that helps to illustrate how seeking out all the talent around us and deploying it is absolutely essential, and that was an analysis of diversity and inclusion in the security and intelligence community. We know a diverse workforce is made up of individuals with an array of identities, abilities, perspectives and experience. We know an inclusive workforce is fair, equitable, supportive, welcoming and respectful. Why did the committee decide to review these issues in the security and intelligence community in the first place? First, there are persistent challenges to increasing diversity and inclusion in the security and intelligence community, even after decades of legislation, multiple reports and repeated calls for change. Second, the committee believes that organizations responsible for defending Canada and protecting Canadians must leverage the broad range of skills, talent, experience and perspectives that this magnificent country has to offer. Third, as shown conclusively in numerous international reports and studies on security and intelligence organizations worldwide, a diverse and inclusive workforce is critical to operational success and performance. In other words, the more diverse and inclusive a workforce is, it turns out the higher-performing it is. That is a good thing. That is an inclusive thing. That is a fair thing, and that is an economic thing. Our committee saw evidence that the leaders of our national security agencies are all committed to improving diversity and inclusion in their respective workforce, but we have a long way to go. As detailed in our report, that needs sustained leadership, a broad commitment and increased accountability right across the community, if those organizations are going to fully reflect and include Canada's diversity. Inspired by those ideas, I am honoured to speak again to my private member's bill to establish the month of April in Canada as Arab heritage month. On a more personal note, in my own family, I was privileged to have a Syrian Canadian godfather, one of the original founding Syrian Canadian families in my hometown of Ottawa, a man of great intelligence, kindness and integrity. His origins were humble. In fact, they were steeped in poverty, and his values instilled in me a deep appreciation for hard work, giving back and public service. He was the ultimate Canadian. He had no access to formal education, and he loved this country far less critically than, I might say, I do. I have always believed that Canada's diversity is its single greatest source of strength. It is a conclusion I have arrived at having had the privilege of living on four continents and working and travelling in over 80 countries before ever entering elected public service. The belief that Canada's diversity is its single greatest source of strength informs this bill. It is a belief I have reaffirmed over and over again during my almost 19 years in this House. It is a belief I have reaffirmed over and over again during my almost 19 years in the House, and nowhere has this been more evident and obvious than in our Arab-Canadian community. Arab Canadians, from all walks of life, continue to make extremely important contributions to social, economic and political life in Canada, as well as to Canada's cultural fabric, including through literature, music, food, fashion, science, research, academia, public service, professions and businesses. Arab heritage month in Canada would be a terrific opportunity for Arab Canadians to be recognized, finally, for their contributions to this amazing country. It would give us the opportunity to recognize and pay tribute to the countless Arab entrepreneurs and small business owners right across Canada, who do so much to support their communities. From the diversity of my riding to my own godfather, to my many friends in the national capital region Arab community and beyond, perhaps it is more clear to those watching tonight as to why I introduced this bill and why I am working so hard, with all of my colleagues, to make sure it is passed. The enactment of Arab heritage month in Canada would ensure that the contributions of Arab Canadians are recognized, shared, and celebrated across this great country, not just every April, but every day. It is long past time that we take up that mantle and celebrate that incredible contribution. We are always stronger when we pull together.

1601 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Feb/16/23 5:31:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-232

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for his bill coming to third reading and passing most of the difficulties that any bill can face in the House. Ottawa is a place with a very large Arab community. I know that my own Lebanese community is quite established here. Could the hon. member give us one incident that he found in the past about the community's involvement and contribution adding to the enrichment of Canadian history and Canadian society?

82 words