44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 16, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/16/23 10:33:30 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very nice to hear my colleague speaking French. His accent is excellent.
I would like to once again remind him that Quebec and the provinces are the ones responsible for the health care model. The Supreme Court clearly ruled in that regard in Chaoulli. It stated that a person who is waiting for surgery cannot be banned from using private health care.
What does my colleague think about that?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 10:48:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is talk about that in the study on the labour shortage in the care economy. About 15 years ago when I was living in Quebec, I was at a dinner and there were conversations around the table then. We knew 15 years ago that there were not enough spots and placements. That is a serious issue. The Liberal government has the opportunity to start working with those organizations and with the provincial and territorial organizations to lift that.
I want to point out, though, that we have known this was happening. People were sitting around tables talking about this 15 years ago and the Liberal government and the Conservative government before it did nothing about it.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 10:49:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we agree with the substance of the motion, in other words, the need to strengthen our free universal public health care systems.
In Quebec, we watch these issues closely, but this is not the place to be debating them.
We see what is happening in Ontario and Manitoba, as well as the potential abuses, and I think there are some battles to be fought. However, the most important battle to wage, when we talk about staffing, working conditions and labour shortages, is getting the federal government to provide adequate funding to the provinces so that they can carry out their responsibilities.
Why did the NDP not call out the federal government's inadequate investment in the latest agreement with the provinces?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 11:11:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.
The motion before us deals with a matter that is clearly not a federal jurisdiction, but a provincial one. Health care systems fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I listened to the speech by my colleague that covered a lot of things, which, once again, are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
We are still somewhat in shock as a result of the agreement on health transfers reached between the federal government and Quebec and the provinces. There is an explanation for this. In a way, it is like someone who walks for such a long time in the desert that they really crave a good meal. However, they are certainly not going to turn down a glass of water. The federal government offered a pittance and the provinces accepted on bended knee, if I can use that expression.
I have a simple question for my colleague. The federal government considers itself to have an important role and responsibilities in health care, and I would like to know how many hospitals it manages, outside of Canadian Forces hospitals. I would like to know how many doctors, nurses and health staff the government has to hire as part of its usual responsibilities.
213 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 11:11:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.
The motion before us deals with a matter that is clearly not a federal jurisdiction, but a provincial one. Health care systems fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I listened to the speech by my colleague that covered a lot of things, which, once again, are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
We are still somewhat in shock as a result of the agreement on health transfers reached between the federal government and Quebec and the provinces. There is an explanation for this. In a way, it is like someone who walks for such a long time in the desert that they really crave a good meal. However, they are certainly not going to turn down a glass of water. The federal government offered a pittance and the provinces accepted on bended knee, if I can use that expression.
I have a simple question for my colleague. The federal government considers itself to have an important role and responsibilities in health care, and I would like to know how many hospitals it manages, outside of Canadian Forces hospitals. I would like to know how many doctors, nurses and health staff the government has to hire as part of its usual responsibilities.
213 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 11:18:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, hopefully members of the House will begin to understand that using meaningless words is not helpful to Canadians. I am not sure how to exactly make that point because it seems to be lost on many people who come here and attempt to do business.
What we do know very clearly is that the health care system we have, as mentioned very passionately by the former president of the Canadian Medical Association, is a system that is on the brink of collapse. Continuing to go on about grand ideas and priorities is in no way, shape or form going to operationalize any ideas in this country, which is really what we need. I guess, in the vernacular, we need people who are actually going to do something.
Many groups have put forward great ideas about pathways, road maps and priorities, etc. There has been talk about a lot of money that is going to be spent, has been spent or should be spent. What do we have? We have a system that is no different.
We know that after eight years of the Liberal government, we have people waiting and waiting. Very sadly, the waiting is now waiting until they are dead. This is the ridiculous and heartbreaking nature of a system that we in the House and the government, as I am putting the blame squarely at the feet of the Liberal government, have allowed to happen. People are literally dying in emergency rooms. That is the point where we need to begin to consider how to operationalize those things and what sort of leadership the federal government needs to bear to change the system.
I was fortunate enough to have worked in the health care system as a family doctor for 26 years. Four of those years was serving our country in the military. Even way back then, we knew very clearly that there was a shortage of physicians. Part of the work that I was required to do as a physician was to go other bases around this country so that other physicians could have a vacation. That is a rotation that we did.
As I transitioned from my miliary life into a practice in Truro, Nova Scotia, it became very clear that changes were happening in our health care system. Of course, as we all know, we have an aging population, which is felt more acutely perhaps in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec than elsewhere in the country, but at that time we also knew there was a dwindling of resources available, both financial and health human resources.
I had the privilege and opportunity to be a part of the health human resource study that was done by the Standing Committee on Health. It was a decent study, but I am still not entirely sure that there is a pathway forward on how to operationalize the ideas. One of the things that makes me the saddest is understanding that the folks I had the opportunity to work with, and who continue to work in the system are, as we might say, burned out, tired, frustrated, angry and hurt. How do we begin to change that? If we do not look at the system as a whole and begin to look at ideas on how to change that and change it quickly, then we are going to continue down the same path. It does not really matter how much money we pour into the system. We must focus on the people who are the greatest asset of the system.
I heard my colleague on the Liberal side talking about how data saves lives. I have to say it cuts right to my own heart to hear him say that data saves lives. People save lives. The doctors and nurses who are working on the front lines in emergency rooms and in small places across this entire country are the people who save lives. Does data help? Sure, it does. We have been talking about data strategies since I cannot even remember when, since the Stone Age, and we still have no real data strategy.
We can talk about it all we want, but until somebody has the courage to begin to operationalize that and work collaboratively with provincial governments, we are never going to get to the point where anything happens. For me, in coming here for the last 18 months, that is the most frustrating. When do things happen in the government? When do things get done? Who does the work?
We can have priorities and ideas and that kind of stuff. I am not saying that the Liberal government does not have priorities and ideas, that it does not put money toward things, but they are things that I do not necessarily agree with.
I think that the other thing is that there is no work being done. When is something actually going to happen? When is Beau Blois, who is an emergency room physician in Truro, Nova Scotia, actually going to feel the difference, in an operational sense, of something that we are actually doing?
We can, again, use all kinds of meaningless words and talk about things over and over again, but for that man, who also has a family, runs a business, and works very hard in our community, when is the operational rubber going to meet the road? When is something actually going to happen that is different? Until that point, we know that we will continue with this system, which lets down Canadians and Canadian health care workers.
For me, having been in that position, that is something that makes me very, very sad. From a very personal perspective, I know that the people who are working in the system care deeply about their patients, and doing a good job, and they care very deeply about the system as well. They are aware of the difficulties in the system. They call every day with ideas and ways in which they believe that the system could actually be changed to make it better. I think that the shame of it all is that after eight years of the Liberal government, all we get is more ideas and planning and priorities and meaningless talk that does not operationalize anything.
I know what is going is happen today. Somebody on that side of the House will chirp at me to say, well, it is the provincial government and I am talking about jurisdictional issues, and guess what happens? Absolutely nothing happens.
That is the sickest part of it all. We can talk about this until we are blue in the face, but until somebody actually does something that creates an opportunity for change and operationalizes something, nothing happens. That leaves the emergency room doctor, Dr. Beau Blois, still doing what he is trying to do, even though he works very hard and many hours in a multitude of different health care settings in my area.
Another guy that I have worked with for many years, Dr. Wayne Pickett, works in four or five different emergency rooms around rural Nova Scotia. Why does he do it? He does it because there is a need. He has tremendous skills. He is a compassionate doctor, and I would be happy to have him, if I needed the work, work on me any day.
That being said, how do we change the life of the Dr. Wayne Picketts of the world? How do we change things so that, in an operational sense, we can see change on the ground, so that the Mary Smiths and whoever we want to talk about, the Ednas of the world, get care?
How do they realize that they not have a family doctor any more and they are having a difficult time getting their prescriptions refilled? How do we also then take virtual care and make it a reality?
We have had conversations about virtual care, but if we go to the doctor and all we do is see them on a screen and nobody is there to examine us, how do we know that what we have told the doctor is right, that it is actually the case? How do we rectify the fact that using virtual care is significantly increasing the amount of diagnostic imaging that needs to be done?
Why is that? It is because the doctor, instead of actually seeing us and examining us when we have a sore arm, says, “Well, I guess your arm is sore, and that is unfortunate, so let's get an x-ray done.” Whereas, if we had an experienced practitioner, someone could actually see us to examine us and then realize that maybe we do not need an x-ray done, that we have another problem.
These are things that we are facing. When we think about it, we have an electronic medical record in Nova Scotia. I think that is worthwhile explaining, because I am not entirely sure that everybody understands how this might work.
If I have an electronic medical record in my office, and I am working in the emergency room and one is my patient, then I can look at their records. If I have an electronic medical record, and somebody else comes whose family physician has the same electronic medical record, in the emergency room, I cannot look at their electronic medical record. It does not make any sense.
Until we take these very practical problems and decide to make a difference, all we are going to do in the House of Commons is speak meaningless words that fill up Hansard. Those are some examples of very practical things we could do.
I am not being particularly critical, but I think we have a decent system in Nova Scotia. I know it is similar across the country. There are people struggling to get blood work done. It takes a long time to book an appointment. We now have a combination of systems that is difficult for seniors to access because it is computer-based. How do we rectify those things? How do we help seniors in our communities who are struggling with that?
When we look at those things, we know there are significant issues that need to be operationalized. I realize that the default in this grand institution we are in is to say something is a provincial issue. We do not have leadership here. We need to begin by looking at innovative ideas and how we can tie them together from province to province, and if we have a crisis in this country, we know that it is possible to show significant federal leadership, which sadly does not happen now.
I am going to shift gears a bit and talk about mental health. There has been a lot of talk about mental health and not much done about it. We know that since the pandemic, one in three Canadians has suffered significantly with their mental health. We also know that the Liberal government has put together studies which would suggest that 25% of Canadians not being able to access mental health care is a reasonable number. I think it should be zero. There should not be anybody out there who struggles to access mental health care. In this country, the greatest country in the world, we allow that to happen, and that is a travesty. That is absolutely unacceptable.
What is at the heart of that? I think there are a few things at the heart of it. It is a reflection of the state of this country. The sad state is that everything is broken. People feel defeated. They do not feel like they have hope. They do not feel like they have a future. They do not feel like they have a voice. When people feel like that, we have to reflect on how that makes us feel inside as people. How does that make us value ourselves and our contributions, not just to our families but to our country and communities? How do we invigorate people so they can actually feel like they are contributing to this country and get that wonderful feedback so they know they did that?
What are the other things in mental health that are important? There are a few things. Certainly, we have heard from counsellors and psychotherapists to know that the Liberal government is still charging GST on their services, which is a burden. We know that it would be a very easy fix to allow counsellors and psychotherapists to not charge GST on their services, which would then allow a greater number of Canadians access to the services they deserve.
What about mental health funding? To the people who are listening to what we are doing today, they know that in the 2021 platform of the Liberal government, it said it was going to fund a Canada mental health transfer up to the tune of $4.5 billion. Here we are, and year after year goes by. We had the fall economic statement. There is another budget coming up to talk about more money.
I have to mention something. I was on the MAID committee, and its members wanted to talk about funding. I said, “Great, let us talk about funding. Where is the $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer?” The member opposite had the audacity to say it has been transferred. Everybody in the House knows that not one penny has been transferred under the Canada mental health transfer.
If it were not so incredibly gut-wrenching, nauseating and inappropriate, it would actually be funny because the member said that maybe we transferred it under another name. Why would it be under another name? The government announced a $4.5-billion project, and it wants me to believe that it transferred that money under another name. That is baloney. That is shameful.
Now, here we are, and Canadians are suffering. I heard my colleague across the way say he realized that Canadians were suffering with their mental health. If the Liberals have committed the money, why do they not just send it to the provinces and allow them to do things?
What we will hear from the government is a strange thing, and I want to be clear on it. The Liberal government is going to tell Canadians that it does not want to transfer the money because it wants the provinces to be accountable for it. The wasteful Liberal government is holding back money that could help the mental health of Canadians because it wants accountability. It wastes money on everything every day and it does not want to help people with mental health. I find it absolutely and shockingly ridiculous that we are even hearing this type of retort from my colleagues across the way.
We have had eight years of the current Liberal government and what do we have to show for it? Perhaps some statistics might be helpful.
When someone goes to see their family doctor, and the doctor realizes it is something they cannot take care of themselves, they send the patient to a specialist. The specialist may recommend some treatment. I do not know if members know the number, but the wait time is six months. That is the longest it has been in 30 years.
What is perhaps an even sadder statistic is that five million Canadians do not have access to primary care, with perhaps 130,000 in my own province of Nova Scotia. We know there are 1.228 million people waiting for procedures in Canada.
We could also look at diagnostic imaging. For folks out there who may not know what that means, it is CAT scans, MRIs and regular X-rays. We know those wait times are the longest they have been in forever.
What else do we know? We know we have drug shortages in this country. We brought Health Canada and the minister to the health committee to talk about the shortages of pediatric ibuprofen and acetaminophen, and what answers did we get? We got absolutely none. They said they were going to work on it and maybe get some in, but we know that when people go to their pharmacies, the cupboards are still bare.
What else do we know? We know there are critical drug shortages of every pediatric oral antibiotic that, if I was working as a family doctor, I would prescribe for children with bacterial infections. We know that every one of them is short. As I said previously, we also know, from the words of Dr. Katharine Smart, former Canadian Medical Association president, that we are in a system on the brink of collapse.
What else do we know? After eight years of the Liberal government, we know, as I mentioned right off the top, that people are dying in emergency rooms around this country. Somebody died in my own riding in Amherst in the emergency room, a lady named Holthoff. It is a sad state of affairs. There are no words to describe that. Those are things that should not be happening in Canada.
We know, after eight years of the Liberal government, that the Prime Minister refused to meet with premiers. When he eventually met with them and gave them a package, he said, “Here is your money. Hit the road. I don't want to hear any of your talk about this anymore.”
We know there is a significant crisis in the health care system, and we know that right now it is borne on the backs of the folks who continue to work on it, folks whom I have had the privilege and opportunity to work with. We know that if we do not operationalize our ideas in this great House, nothing is going to change. That is the sad concern I have: that nothing is going to change and we are going to continue down the same path we are on. We need to have great leadership in this country, and right now we do not have it.
I will end with an interesting take on this. If someone wants a solution to health care, they should elect a Conservative government.
3051 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 11:47:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this morning's debate is kind of schizophrenic.
Everyone who got up to speak, no matter their political stripe, said there is a problem with Canada's health care system, that it does not make sense, that there are wait lists for surgery and mental health and that seniors are not getting the care they should be getting. Everyone agrees on that. People are practically unanimous in saying something must be done about it.
True to form, the NDP moved a motion that does not belong in the House. We are going to spend a day wasting our breath because the things the NDP wants to talk about today are up to Quebec and the provinces.
The Liberals have made their choice. They have decided not to be part of the solution. The provinces and Quebec asked for $6 billion, but the Liberals gave them $1 billion. Now they are merrily flinging numbers around as though they were fixing things.
My Conservative friends have come to the same conclusion, but have they come up with the same answer? They have been pretty quiet about whether they would significantly increase health transfers to fix the country's health care system if ever—
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 12:33:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I sleep very well at night knowing that New Democrats are in this place fighting for regular Canadians while the Bloc continues to stop support for even the people of Quebec. Shame.
I also want to note that the Conservatives will not rise once to ask about this issue, because they know exactly what is happening in provinces run by Conservatives.
To better answer the question of the member, I believe in a universally administered, publicly accessible health care system right across the country, and he does not even have to look too far to actually get that answer. The member could have done some homework and looked at the country's track record on ensuring we had universally administered and publicly accessible health care. He could refer to the 1965 royal commission on this issue. If he looked at that, it calls for a national health care program. Even those in Quebec agreed to those things, and now they are getting mad because they realize they are wrong.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 12:47:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, again, this is not about that jurisdictional fight, which I know has been the focus of the Bloc today. It is not actually voting with the NDP beyond that jurisdiction fight. Yes, it is about the money. It has not been there. The Conservatives slashed it in the Harper days. The Liberals have not brought it back to the levels that are required.
Each provincial government, including the Quebec national government, has underfunded health care. They have used the privatization aspect to underfund those public system. Money is at stake here. It is part of the conversation, but so is the drive of each provincial and territorial government on what they expect Canadians, overall, to put up with. Simply put, it cannot be a privatization of the system.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 1:02:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear our Liberal colleague say that it is up to the provinces to ensure the sound management and administration of the health care system.
However, what he said about members of the Bloc Québécois is rather frustrating and offensive. He said that the Bloc members were flipping out.
The Bloc Québécois is defending Quebec, and it joined the Government of Quebec in asking for $6 billion in health care transfers to meet needs. We are getting $1 billion, so that is what the Bloc is upset about.
Can my colleague explain why he said that the Bloc Québécois is flipping out?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 1:02:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I defended the Province of Quebec. Every year, for the 19 years that I sat in the Manitoba legislature, Ottawa is always asked for more money for health care.
We did not hear the provinces complain when there was a tax point shift, when Ottawa said there would be a reduction in cash transfers in favour of a tax point shift. The provinces did not complain then. At the end of the day, provinces and municipalities always want to have more money. We need to ensure that there is adequate federal funding, and the $198-billion, 10-year commitment is just that.
We are there at the table. That is why the provinces have signed on, because they have recognized that this is the type of money that is going to make the difference in providing the quality care that Canadians have from coast to coast.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 1:16:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that all Canadians, regardless of the size of their wallets, must have timely access to health services.
That said, for 30 years, health transfers have been cut by every government in power. In Canada, and not just in Quebec, this has led to governments taking measures in crisis situations. That is how we ended up with a system that is stretched to the limit.
It has also been constitutionally determined that in crisis situations the federal government must use its spending power to give an extra hand to the provinces, which it did. My colleague and I also agree on that.
That said, the health transfers fall short of constitutional agreements. When will they be compliant, to ensure that our health care systems can fully serve the public?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 1:35:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will just reiterate some of what I said before. I agree with my colleague. Wait lists for surgeries, children, seniors and people seeking addiction treatment are atrocious.
This is true in Quebec too. Every day, we see images of wait lists in ERs. People cannot get adequate care in Canada, and that is an absolute disgrace.
However, here we are spending yet another day wasting our breath because we cannot change anything about the things in my NDP friends' motion. That is all down to the provinces.
However, there are changes we can make. I wonder why the NDP did not use its motion to tell the Liberals that the provinces asked for $6 billion and got $1 billion. Why not move a motion asking the feds to increase health transfers from $1 billion to $6 billion? That would shorten wait lists—
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 1:36:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to defend the Canadian health care system and, more importantly, the Canadian public health care system.
It is already common knowledge that public health care was created here, in the House, by Tommy Douglas, former NDP leader, and by the NPD caucus in the 1960s. That was when our universal public health care system was created. The NDP was not only an inspiration, it also fought for the health care system we have today.
In all the polls of Canadians that have been commissioned over the years asking them which Canadian institution makes them the most proud, all Canadians, including Quebeckers, respond that universal public health care is the institution that they care about the most.
This is worth mentioning, because the NDP inspired its creation and fought for this Canadian public health care system that people across Canada value, be they in Chicoutimi or Calgary. Indeed, 80% of Canadians value our universal public health care system.
However, it must be said that this system is currently at risk because of underfunding. It was underfunded by the Conservatives and then by the Liberals. This lack of funding is undermining our public health care system. Now, we are also facing a government that is refusing to strengthen the Canada Health Act. This act reflects all of the principles of universal public health care in Canada. However, we have a Liberal government that refuses to respect these principles and ensure they are upheld. When I watch Quebec television, I am now seeing ads for private surgeries and for a whole range of services offered in the private sector. This type of thing should not be happening under the Canada Health Act. Proper funding is, of course, extremely important.
In light of all that, what the NDP is proposing today should be a given. The House should unanimously adopt this motion, which says that we cannot promote a for-profit health care system as some kind of innovation, that we must ensure that health care funding is used for the universal public system, and that we must ensure that we have more nurses, more staff and more doctors. All of these things are possible.
We are also saying that we need to strengthen the Canada Health Act so as not to expand the use of for-profit health care, because that is detrimental. We know that, because of its for-profit health care system, per capita health care costs in the United States are twice as high as they are in Canada. We also know that tens of millions of Americans do not even have access to their health care system. To illustrate, my cousin had a car accident in California, and that cost him $100,000 and put him in an extremely difficult situation. That is something that we see all the time in the U.S.
A profit-driven health care system is a system full of holes that leaves people without health care coverage. They then have to use their credit cards. Plus, the costs are double what they would be in a normal system.
This is the question that is before each parliamentarian. There is no doubt that, if we ask our constituents, and I hope Conservatives and Liberals will ask their constituents before they vote on this after we have a two-week break in our constituencies, our constituents would say, at a level of 80%, that they believe in universal public health care in Canada.
Tommy Douglas started universal public health care. The NDP caucus fought for it in the 1960s, and we fought for it because we know that people should not have to rely on their credit cards when they have health challenges that force them to get medical support. There is no doubt that ensuring our universal public health care system continues, and gets better and even expanded, is why the member for Burnaby South has fought for dental care. That is why we are fighting for pharmacare.
Members will recall that, just two years ago, Conservatives and Liberals voted against pharmacare, even though 30,000 Canadians in each of their ridings need access to universal public pharmacare. They voted against the interests of their constituents and for the interests of big pharmaceutical companies.
We believe we actually need to expand health care and ensure dental care. We must ensure health care, as the member for Burnaby South has said so often, from the tops of our heads to the soles of our feet. That is health care that Tommy Douglas imagined, and that is universal public health care that Canadians support.
We have the Conservatives, as always, trying to undermine and throw out our health care system. We see this with Doug Ford in Ontario. They are obviously not doing it with the support of their constituents, and I would level a warning to Conservatives who believe that somehow they can trick their constituents by voting against public health care and undermining public health care. Canadians support public health care, and Conservatives should get on board. They should be supporting public health care in this country, because that is what Canadians support and that is what their constituents want them to do.
I am anticipating that Conservatives are going to vote “yes” on this motion. I am anticipating that Liberals will too, even though they voted against pharmacare and dental care. The NDP brought them kicking and screaming to the reality that we need to expand our public health care system.
The member for Vancouver Kingsway is absolutely right. We have now forced dental care. We are going to have a vote this year on pharmacare. These are important innovations and expansions. This is the fundamental strength of our public health care system.
We need to ensure adequate funding. We need to ensure, as well, that the Canada Health Act is actually upheld, that a law in this country is actually respected. What a concept that is. We see private clinics and we see provincial governments moving to the huge cost that comes from for-profit health care. We see them trying to chip away at universal public health care rather than funding it adequately, and the federal government needs to start stepping up on funding of public health care in this country.
We throw away, in a system created by the Conservatives and maintained by the Liberals, $30 billion every year to the ultrarich in notorious overseas tax havens. There are treaties the Harper government signed to allow the ultrarich to take their money offshore, and the Liberals have maintained that system, to the chagrin of most Canadians.
We have the financial ability to adequately fund our health care, and that means ensuring people also have access to their medication, dental care and mental health care. These are all fundamental tenets of universal public health care.
In this corner of the House, the NDP stands resolutely for adequate funding for enforcement of the Canada Health Act and for ensuring we push back on private, for-profit health care, because we know it costs Canadians twice as much. We know it means Canadians get a substandard level of care as it is creamed off into for-profit health care.
When we see big corporations like Loblaws trying to step up to take their piece, New Democrats, members of the NDP caucus, our leader from Burnaby South and our health critic from Vancouver Kingsway all say “no” to for-profit health care. We say “yes” to adequately funded universal public health care in Canada.
1277 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
